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]
Raich and the Future of Medicinal Marijuana

By lostincali in Op-Ed
Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:44:39 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

Since the passage of California's Proposition 215 in 1996, medical marijuana has become an increasingly important political issue in the United States. Today, 10 states have recognized medicinal Cannabis and enacted laws protecting patients.

Unforunately, the recent Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Raich is a major setback for the medical marijuana movement. What follows is a discussion of related issues, as well as a plea for your assistance at this critical time.


The Uses of Medical Marijuana

Marijuana has long been known to provide relief for a variety of problems. According to Wikipedia: Medical Marijuana, Cannabis has been used medically throughout the world for thousands of years for many conditions. The Pain Research Unit at the James Paget Hospital also provides information about the medical uses for marijuana.

Cannabis is known to provide symptomatic relief for migraines, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, arthritis, and the severe nausea experienced by AIDS and cancer patients. It is also known to slow the progression of glaucoma.

Marijuana has also been used in the treatment of certain addictions. It is no surprise that its calming effects help recovering addicts who feel quite uncomfortable while they adjust to life without the harder drugs they have given up.

Another controversial use of marijuana is in the treatment of mood disorders, such as bipolar and anxiety disorders. Dr. Tom O'Connell has documented many individuals who find that Cannabis provides symptomatic relief for their anxiety. It really comes as no surprise that marijuana relaxes people, and that this could benefit those with anxiety. Despite the obvious folk wisdom, it is good to see a professional documenting such information for the medical community.

The point is, marijuana provides significant relief for a lot of people with a variety of conditions. The United States Federal Government wants to harass these poor individuals, and we ought to stand up in their defense.

Medical Marijuana outside the United States

Medical marijuana has currently been accepted in several other nations.

Canada has a medical marijuana program, although it is quite limited. Medical use has also been formally granted, to some degree, in Israel, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Portugal. Cannabis use is largely tolerated, for all purposes, in many other nations as well.

Furthermore, Sativex, a non-smoked, "whole plant product" manufactured by British GW Pharmaceuticals has recently been approved in Canada, while awaiting approval in other nations.

The US Federal Position

According to the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is classified as Schedule I, a classification "reserved for the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use."

The Government maintains this position, despite several reports and studies recognizing marijuana's medical uses, including the Government's own Institute of Medicine Report and a small Federal program which allows medical use for 7 Americans.

The Federal Government contends that a synthetic form of THC, known as Dronabinol, is already available with a prescription. Yet this drug is extremely expensive, and, for many patients, less effective than whole Cannabis.

Since the Federal Government does not recognize the medical use of marijuana, it treats patients who use marijuana as criminals. This raises a serious question about the intentions and priorities of our government. Why must they harass severely ill people who find relief in a controversial medicine?

Why can't they just let these people be? Medical marijuana patients pose no harm to society, and have found a relatively safe way to relieve horrible symptoms. The Federal Government is wrong to persecute these people.

Medical Marijuana and the Raich Decision

The Raich decision has far reaching implications within the United States. Several implications for federalism exist. However, I am presently more concerned with the direct implications for medical marijuana in the United States.

The Court ruled that federal laws trump state laws, that the commerce cause applies to personal marijuana production, and that federal authorities may prosecute medical marijuana patients--even those abiding by state laws for medical marijuana use. While the state laws still stand, federal agents could be coming after medical marijuana patients at any time.

A Plea for Your Support

We are at a critical time for action, since this issue currently has the public's attention.

Please support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment, which would bar the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients.

This advocacy website allows you to send a letter to your federal representatives easily and quickly. Please help us defend suffering patients--it will only take a minute!

Sponsors

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

Login

Related Links
o Gonzalez v. Raich
o Wikipedia: Medical Marijuana
o The Pain Research Unit at the James Paget Hospital
o Dr. Tom O'Connell
o medical marijuana program
o Sativex
o Controlled Substances Act
o reports and studies
o Institute of Medicine Report
o small Federal program
o implicatio ns
o ruled
o state laws still stand
o advocacy website
o Also by lostincali


Display: Sort:
Raich and the Future of Medicinal Marijuana | 557 comments (512 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden)
3 common sense things to slay ignorance (2.61 / 18) (#10)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 07:02:09 AM EST

  1. current marijuana laws are a racist legacy. alcohol is accepted because those who wrote the laws in this country over a hundred years ago were familiar with alcohol. their fathers were drunks from germany or ireland who beat their mothers: familiarity breeds acceptance of most anything. meanwhile, marijuana was something the scary brown people used. therefore, it must be outlawed. that's the only reason the laws are the way they are today.
  2. that is because 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. yes, of course they are different drugs, but on the scale of things from caffeine to heroin, they are roughly the same, and should therefore be treated legally as such.
so a sound legal policy should have marijuana and alcohol legal, or marijuana and alcohol both illegal. but alcohol legal, marijuana illegal: that not makes no sense. meanwhile, so that no slippery slope is implied: cocaine and heroin and other hard drugs like that should NEVER be legal: their quick and easy addiction profile, heavy inebriation/ incapacitation experience, and deathly adverse health effects means these hard drugs are verboten, end of story. there is NO slippery slope.

3. that marijuana is a gateway drug is pure bullshit. that is because the very notion of a gateway drug is pure bullshit. if you accept that marijuana is a gateway drug, well then you must accept that alcohol is one to. if you don't understand this, then you have something in common with the xenophoibc white ancestors who wrote the current alcohol ok, marijuana not laws in this country: familiarity breeds acceptance of most anything.


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

not really (2.50 / 2) (#11)
by Nyarlathotep on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 07:42:55 AM EST

<i>cocaine and heroin and other hard drugs like that should NEVER be legal: their quick and easy addiction profile, heavy inebriation/ incapacitation experience, and deathly adverse health effects means these hard drugs are verboten, end of story</i><p>

I don't see a "slippery slope" in outlawing cocaine, etc., but I do believe that these drugs can be handled better by tightly regulated tollerance.  You tax the drugs to pay for the medical care they imply (associated doctor visits and rehabilitation).  To buy the drugs, you must get a 6 month lissence from any doctor.  The doctor has to give you the lissence, but he's also supposed to examine you, and tell you how much your fucking your life up with the stuff.  If a person can't choose to get off the stuff with a trained professional getting a shot to talk them out of it twice a year, then they ain't going anyplace in life anyway.<p>

Alcohol and marijuana should also be taxed to pay for the associated rehabilitation and state health care costs, as well as for anti-alcohol and marijuana advertising.  People should be discuraged for doing nasty shit, cocain just get a more personal touch because its such bad news.<p>
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
[ Parent ]

no, no, no (none / 1) (#49)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 05:11:55 PM EST

marijuana and alcohol are fine

but cocaine and heroin must be outlawed forever

you simply don't understand what these drugs can do to people, or really care about people, if you don't understand that


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

[ Parent ]

There is a tradeoff though (none / 0) (#84)
by daani on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:24:08 AM EST

Pumping money into organized crime also causes problems. This should at least be considered. I don't know a great deal about cocaine, but unadulterated heroin is not as much of a problem as many people make out. Giving gangsters a monopoly on a worldwide billion dollar market is certainly a problem.

I don't agree with full legalisation for either of these things, but it should be recognised that we can *never* win the drug war. At the moment we don't even have drug-free prisons, despite the fact that prisoners have no civil rights.

I'll get slammed as "anti-American" for this, but it's interesting to note that the United States, where the drug war has been prosecuted with more vigour than anywhere else, suffers more from the social ills of hard drugs than other western countries. Of course, the US is pretty unique in that, for whatever reason, a large section of the population is economically marginalised and yet still has major international purchasing power.

<Dons asbestos suit, ready for flaming>


[ Parent ]

the war on drugs will wage forever (none / 0) (#157)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:13:22 PM EST

it's simply the wages of civilization

the war on terror will wage forever: there will always be born anew, in every generation, assholes who think that they can make political points by killing innocents. and so, we will always be fighting terror.

pedophiles will always be born anew, in every generation. does that fact mean we should stop fighting pedophiles? no, it's simply the wages and costs of maintaining civilization. therwe will always be a "war on pedophilia"

the war on drugs is simply like simple weather proofing you make on your house every year before winter starts. what a chore, a pain in the ass, and the materials could better be used to buy a new set of dvds. and in fact, you can stop winterizing your house, but then your house will fall apart. same with the war on drugs: it is very expensive, and it hurts, but it is cheaper than the costs of stopping the fight.


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

[ Parent ]

Totally different (none / 0) (#178)
by daani on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 01:18:22 AM EST

Kiddie-fiddlers hurt kids. Terrorists kill people.Drug-use in the absence of prohibition harms only drug-users.

The goal of the war on drugs is (presumably) to stop drug-users from harming themselves. The most positive spin you can put on it is that we have to put some people in jail so that:

(1) People will be too scared of the authorities to take drugs, or
(2) People will not have the opportunity to take drugs because they are not available.

The second is a pipe dream. The best we can hope for is to push the price up a little bit. The first is at best a questionable tactic.

In the meantime, we pay a huge price for this. America is plagued by gangs and gang violence. Does anyone seriously believe this would exist without hardline drug prohibition?

Drug prohibition allows organized crime to control a billion dollar market and to use drug addicts as it's footsoldiers for other criminal activity as well.

I don't want to see people I care for on hard drugs either. But what we are doing now does not work at all. And if we cannot stop people from trying these things, then I would rather they had properly produced products, not shit cut with whatever was closest to hand when some dirtbag mixed it up. And if things go wrong, help must be available without threat of persecution.

[ Parent ]

the prohibition era teaches us many things (none / 0) (#184)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 01:35:23 AM EST

namely, that marijuana being illegal is unacceptable, for all of the reasons you mention above, not to mention hypocritical when you compare the effects of marijuana on the human body to alcohol

however, the costs of the lessons of prohibition are outweighed when considered against drugs like heroin, cocaine meth

do you want to try again, this time with a more realistic appraisal of the health effects/ addiction profiles/ inebriation experience of these hard drugs?

there are horrible costs associated with the war on hard drugs, i recognize every single one of them and agree with you completely 100% with them of all of them mentioned above as horrible costs

and yet, completely acceptable costs when compared to the kind of effects you would get with an acceptance of these drugs in society

compare and contrast: one set of negatives outweighs the other

this is reality, there is no choice made where no one gets hurt

but people get hurt MORE with an acceptance of hard drugs in society

therefore, the choice is clear:

alcohol and marijuana and nicotine and caffeine should be legal

but when it comes to cocaine, heroin, meth, you lose

you simply don't understand what you are talking about when it comes to an honest appreciation of what these drugs do to the human body biochemically

try again

be honest

in the name of personal liberty, if you understood what these hard drugs rob in terms of personal liberty from people, you would be the loudest fighting for their continued criminalization

in the name of compassion, which you seem to have a lot of for those caught in the crossfire in the war of drugs, but seemed to have conveniently misplaced when it comes to the ease of creation of hard drug users

if you honestly weigh everything you know, you come down on the side of continued criminalization of HARD drugs, and root for the legalization of marijuana


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

[ Parent ]

Ho hum (none / 1) (#191)
by daani on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 03:36:40 AM EST

I already said I know nothing about cocaine. But I do know a lot about heroin and other opiates. I researched the subject as diligently as is posible without actually taking a medicine degree when a close family member was addicted to them.

I encourage you to do similar research yourself, but what it boils down to is that you are extremely unlikely to suffer serious adverse effects in the short term. In fact, in the short term ethanol is significantly more dangerous than unadulterated heroin.

[ Parent ]

i was an aids educator in the early 1990s (1.00 / 2) (#196)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 06:12:55 AM EST

on the lower east side of manhattan, before retrovirals made aids liveable, the 10003 zip code had the highest aids rate in the country

i've seen the worst of the worst of the consequences of heroin addiction

your short term means shit


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

[ Parent ]

No it means everything (none / 1) (#197)
by daani on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 07:54:24 AM EST

With prohibition in place, a kid can die from his first shot because there was no way to ascertain the strength of the dope. Or catch aids because some dopey politician decided selling/exchaning needles was "sending the wrong message". Or end up in jail and proceed to fully-fledged addiction.

A more intelligent, moderate approach means a second chance for people who commit an error of judgement.

[ Parent ]

your examples=completely and utterly true (1.33 / 3) (#198)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 08:37:16 AM EST

except that all of your negative examples are outweighed by the negative examples of a more permissive atmosphere towards heroin

everyone thinks they are immortal and nothing can hurt them at some point in their teenaged/ young adult lives and heroin is appealing

additionally some adults are in a lot of psychological pain and heorin is appealing

so in your mind trading off momentary relief from teenaged hijinks/ adult depression/ whatever, for lifelong addiction, is a good thing?

why are you so willfully blind to what heroin does to people?

of course taking a strong societal stand against the drug results in all of the negatives you have noted, and a lot more you haven't

i accept and recognize every single one of them and assert to you that the negative consequences of a more permissive atmosphere is MORE NEGATIVE

a more permissive atmosphere simply results in MORE addicts... unless you don't recognize what this drug does to people somehow?

expose it to more people, get more addicts... do you deny this about human nature somehow?

so you limit it's exposure as much as possible, even though you know there will be blowback from this effort- those caught in the crossfire from this social policy are negative effects that are smaller than your approach!

heroin is fucking evil, it destroys personal liberty- do you somehow refute this? what in your mind is so willing to play with this fire so callously with vulnerable people in society? what about your experience in life leads you to believe that heroin is anything but evil that must be bottled up?

of course it gets out anyway, of course fighting it has negative efects... all of which are minor compared to a more permissive environment which leads to MORE zombification

what the hell in your life experience leads you to believe that a more permissive approach won't lead to anything but more addicts???????!!!!!!!!!!!

do you really understand heroin?

i simply can't understand your willful blindness of the effects of heroin on people's minds and their lives and their family, friends and their society

i seriosuly don't understand how you can be so naive about the true nature of heroin and human behavior

you have some serious blind spots and lack of understanding of the true nature of heroin and/ or human behavior, good, bad, and ugly

your hubris is actually very similar to the addict who believes they can control their addiction, when the reverse is true: their addicition controls them

pure arrogance in the face of biochemistry

biochemistry beats will power, moron

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

[ Parent ]

opiate/opioid addiction can be like diabetes (none / 1) (#315)
by Polverone on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:23:48 PM EST

Nobody wants to become a diabetic. Nobody wants to see people they care for become a diabetic. But becoming a diabetic isn't the end of the world.

So it is with opiate/opioid addicts who have an inexpensive and clean drug supply. I've made the acquaintance of people who have been dependent on opiates/opioids for 5, 10, 15 years without being found out by the law, employers, or anyone else who could ruin their lives. I've also met some who used for 5 years and then gave up without legal pressure. The common theme among these people is that they were able to obtain clean drugs at a reasonable price, either because they knew a shady pharmacist or because they were able to source black-market drugs of high purity (including synthetics produced by clandestine chemists).

It's easy to spot drug dependent people with serious problems. It's much harder to spot people without serious problems, just like it's easier to spot people who've had chainsaw injuries than people who simply use chainsaws.

I agree that it seems very hard for people dependent on opiates/opioids to give them up. ButI'm not convinced that current policy is less destructive, to drug-dependents or whole societies, than a less punishing approach.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]

incarceration (2.00 / 2) (#421)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:23:26 AM EST

is a less worse punishment than heroin addiction

in prison you still own your mind

and that's real life: no choice that hurts no one

so the choice becomes between punishments of a lesser degree

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

[ Parent ]

in prison (none / 1) (#502)
by Polverone on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:51:30 AM EST

You can still get drugs. If you can only own your own mind when not on drugs, prison doesn't help. The drug warriors believe that drug users' lives will be ruined, without exception. They know this because they're doing their best to ruin the life of each drug user.

Do depressed lab rats dictate international drug policy?

The predominant model of drug addiction views it as a disease: humans and animals will use heroin or cocaine for as long as they are available. When the drugs run out, they will seek a fresh supply; the drugs, not the users, are in control.

These conclusions, repeated frequently by politicians and the media, are based on experiments carried out almost exclusively on animals, usually rats and monkeys, housed in metal cages and experiencing a particularly poor quality of life. What would happen, wondered psychologist Dr Bruce Alexander, then of British Columbia's Simon Fraser University, if these animals were instead provided with a comfortable, stimulating environment?

In 1981, Alexander built a 200sq ft home for lab rats. Rat Park, as it became known, was kept clean and temperate, while the rats were supplied with plenty of food and toys, along with places to dig, rest and mate. Alexander even painted the walls with a soothing natural backdrop of lakes and trees. He then installed two drips, one containing a morphine solution, the other plain water. This was rat heaven: but would happy rats develop morphine habits?

Try as he might, Alexander could not make junkies out of his rats.

I think of heavy, mind-and-body destroying drug abuse as slow motion suicide. Most people who've used hard drugs don't end up like that. In 1985, the official statistic was that 17.3% of high school seniors had tried cocaine, but obviously 17.3% didn't end up as fried, homeless addicts. I think that people who lose themselves in drugs had problems before the drug experience began.

I would try to prevent someone I knew/loved from committing suicide unless they were terminally ill and seemed to have thought things through. In the same way I would try to keep people I care for from acquiring or maintaining a heavy drug habit unless they were terminally ill. But I don't support criminalizing suicide or drugs.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]

Cost of prohibition (none / 1) (#243)
by pyro9 on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 10:09:12 AM EST

Imagine that situation again if the users could have gotten clean sterile needles without a prescription or suspicion that they were using them in connection with a felony (posession).

Further, imagine if they could have been handed out for free as part of harm reduction without breaking the law (yes, hypodermic needles were made prescription items as part of the War on (some) Drugs) or implicitly supporting the comission of a felony.

Although we can't blame the War on Drugs for the existance of AIDS, it DID help spread AIDS amongst heroine users.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
it's about taking a stand (none / 1) (#284)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:17:44 AM EST

permissiveness combined with highly addictive substances only leads to addicts

it's nothing about your intentions or the people involved, it's because you're dealing with addiction: it's relentless

it's hard to save people who are destroying themselves

sure, clean needles can help

but even better yet: lock them up, let them go cold turkey

sound cruel?

no, it's kindness: heroin addiction is a prison beyond anything human cruelty can create

it's kindness to lock them up

do you understand the kind of hell a street addict lives in?


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

[ Parent ]

it's kindness (sarcasm on) (none / 1) (#297)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:09:23 AM EST

you seem to be suffering from a syndrom we call "control-freak"

It's chronic, unfortunetly, and invades your life.

Symptoms include the desire to lock people up when they do things that only involve themself, desire to otherwise meddle in other peoples lives, and paranoia about what people are doing behind closed doors.

We've had lots of treatment programs, but it's relentless: the people are addicted to meddling, and it's hard to save people who are destroying themselves and society.

So we have to lock you up, and let you go cold turkey.

Sound cruel?

No, it's kindness you see. I mean, don't you underseand what kind of hell the street contol-freak lives in? They live in a prison of their own paranoia, that is stronger than anything humanity could create.

And don't give me that bit about how they only are control-freaks some of the time. Once they have tasted the flavor of controlling others, they can never go back, and will continue down the spiral of descruction to themselves and those around them.

So you better stay quiet and indoors, because if we find you trying to be a control-freak in public, we're going to have to lock you up. Remember: It's kindness, and this is for your own good.

(sarcasm off)
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

dude (none / 1) (#418)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:21:15 AM EST

it's all about an increase in freedom from oppression

heroin addiction = worse than prison

in prison, at least you still have your own mind

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

[ Parent ]

opinions as fact (none / 1) (#423)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:25:22 AM EST

you keep saying "heroin addiction == worse than prison".

again, why?!

what evidence do you have for this?

You keep trying to oppress people for the things they want to do. We like it. It's obviously not like prison. If it was, i wouldn't have re-started using after the couple years off I had a while ago.

Just because you consider it a prison doesn't mean you opinion is shared with others.

So put up or shut up, control-freak.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

i'm for freedom from oppression (none / 1) (#428)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:28:38 AM EST

the oppression of addiciton

that's the control freak i am

andit's not an opinion, it's a fact, fi you understand what addiciton really is


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

[ Parent ]

But of course... (none / 1) (#433)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:34:20 AM EST

Your understanding of addiction is an opinion.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
no, it's fact (none / 1) (#458)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:02:57 AM EST

opiates and stimulants are highly addictive

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

[ Parent ]
Again, this is true (none / 1) (#459)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:05:10 AM EST

I'm not saying they aren't addictive. I'm saying addiction isn't the absolute evil you think it is, and it doesn't come about as easily either.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
ok (none / 1) (#463)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:08:16 AM EST

heroin isn't absolute evil

just about as close as you can get though on this earth: robbing people of their free will in the most viral way possible


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

[ Parent ]

No you don't (none / 1) (#424)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:00 AM EST

You never have your own mind, or perhaps you always do, but in any case all of our thoughts are chemical, and whether that chemical is endogenious or not is irrelevent. Chemicals control our thoughts. We are chemicals. If someone becomes a heroin addict and all he things about is heroin, then its all HE thinks about, its still HIM doing the thinking. This is the philosophical error in your assertion addiction is like prison.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 1) (#427)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:27:32 AM EST

are you for real?

look at what you wrote again

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i don't even have to argue anymore, you do my work for me ;-)

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

[ Parent ]

I don't buy it (none / 1) (#304)
by pyro9 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:19:12 AM EST

but even better yet: lock them up, let them go cold turkey

Cold turkey MAY be a valid treatment for the immediate chemical dependancy. However, that's over and done in 72 hours or so. So what's the excuse for keeping them locked up and saddling them with a felony conviction after that? What's the excuse for dumping them back into the cruel existance that lead to their addiction once their incarceration is over? What's the excuse for providing no other treatment? What's the excuse for one of the richest nations on earth allowing such dismal living conditions to exist in the first place?

Given the billions we flush down every year on interdiction and incarceration, I'm not ready to believe the claims that we just can't afford it.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
incarceration of the mind (none / 1) (#416)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:19:49 AM EST

is a greater evil

or am i way out there in my depiction of chemical depency as compared to incarceration?

heroin addiction= worse than prison


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

[ Parent ]

The point (none / 0) (#540)
by pyro9 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 07:42:00 AM EST

Way to studiously ignore the point! Heroine addiction may be worse tha n incarceration, but the point had nothing to do with their reletive demerits. A debate isn't just two people making statements, they must somehow relate to each other.

The question I asked is what is the justification for incarceration beyond the 72 or so hour washout period?

Argue all you want about which is worse, but I point out that given a choice between two bad things, both is generally worse than just one.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Are you a junky? (none / 1) (#310)
by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:19:27 PM EST

Because really, you seem to know SO MUCH about what its like to be an addict, I wonder how else you could know all this.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
wow (none / 1) (#415)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:18:07 AM EST

heroin use is bad because its a highly addictive substance

what a wacky guy i am

the crazy assertions i am making without any proof!

truly i must become a heroin addict before i can say the wacky far otu things i say LOL ;-)

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

[ Parent ]

wow (none / 1) (#419)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:22:19 AM EST

eating tasty chocolate is bad because its a highly addictive substance

what a wacky guy i am

the crazy assertions I am making without any proof!

...

The logic doesn't work with tasty chocolate, so it doesn't work with heroin either. Put up or shut up.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

you can't do this with chocolate (none / 1) (#425)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:32 AM EST

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/om/om15.htm

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

[ Parent ]
No its just... (none / 1) (#420)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:22:28 AM EST

I figured since you don't give any evidence to support your assertions, you might have some personal knowledge you weren't telling us about. Its not that I don't think heroin addiction is a bad thing. You see the world far to much in black and white. You can't understand that I think heroin addiction is bad, but that it isn't the root of all evil.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
heroin addiction is pure evil (none / 1) (#422)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:25:02 AM EST

do you have the fucking faintest sense of empathy in you?


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

[ Parent ]
What I mean by pure evil is (none / 1) (#429)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:29:40 AM EST

Absolute evil, in the philosophical sense. Its evil is measured by evidence, and actual effects. It is not inherently evil, in some divine sense. Therefore, its evil in relation to other things must be measured empirically, and yet you do not offer empiricle evidence. You just go on about how its more evil than anything in the world, how it is absolute evil in some sort of religious way.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
truth (none / 1) (#449)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:55:32 AM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone

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

[ Parent ]

stop with the religious arguments (none / 1) (#430)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:30:15 AM EST

chemical substances are neither good or evil.

No, they don't give you a license to act like an asshole, but they are not inheritly evil.

Dangerous, sure.

Is bleach evil, sense it will kill EVERYBODY that drinks it?

I fail to see how it shows "empathy" on your part to take somebody out of a productive job and put them in jail, reducing the contribution to society, increasing the expense to society, and exposing that person to the violent-criminal element.

Not to mention that they will be exposed to things like HIV and HepC in jail. Such compassion you have! "You like that drug to much, so lets throw you in jail to get abused and exposed to deadly diseases!"

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

truth (none / 1) (#447)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:54:42 AM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone

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

[ Parent ]

I'll tell you what.... (none / 0) (#554)
by ckaminski on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:00:42 PM EST

I've known quite a few people who do cocaine as a hobby/habit, and for every person I know on cocaine who needs help (few), I know three or more who have an alcohol problem.

It's about moderation, temperance, and self control.  Those who have it, will be just fine.  Those who do not, will cause all the rest of us problems, no matter what the substance.

[ Parent ]

Prohibition is self defeating (none / 0) (#241)
by pyro9 on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 09:12:18 AM EST

So you believe we must imprison users of hard drugs in order to preserve their freedom?

I'll turn it around on you a bit. If all drugs were perfectly legal for adults, but with stiff penelties for selling to minors, the profits of drug dealing would be driven down to the point that organized crime would exit the drug trade ( evidence: When is the last time you heard about gang violence over a whiskey deal gone bad?). Legitimate dealers (pharmacists) will be very careful indeed NOT to sell to minors since it would mean the end of their professional career.

The result would be that adult addicts would be a bit more likely to seek treatment (since they would no longer have to confess to a felony to get treatment) most would abstain freely (based on fears real and imagined), and a few more whose abstention was based solely on illegality might try them and need the much more easily available addiction treatment. Finally, hard drugs would be MUCH harder for minors to obtain at all.

So do it for the children!

I do not argue that hard drugs are a good idea. They can and do mess people up. I do argue that imprisoning those people does nothing to free them of drugs. In fact, once they get out, they are saddled with conditions that make their escape from addiction less likely than ever. A felony conviction restricts their job choices and so their ability to immerse themselves in a life of productive contribution. Limited income means they'll likely be forced to live in an area where the drug trade is rampant.

There's a pattern I've seen many times. A person who is by circumstances prevented from making a meaningful contribution falls into a pattern of recreational drug abuse. Presuming they manage to avoid a felony conviction, when their circumstances change, they get involved in life until one day, they realise they haven't had time or inclination to do drugs in months and that they're happier for it.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
this is the way i see it (none / 0) (#253)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:39:59 PM EST

the lessons of prohibition are real and valid: just outlawing something does nothing but makes organized crime stronger and doesn't stop people form becoming inebriated for fun... prohibition is fucking stupid

however, the lessons of prohibition are eclipsed by the lessons of addiction: drugs turn people into zombies, it removes their free will, turning them into biochemically oppressed shells of their former selves

i mean all of your arguments make perfect sense if you completely ignore ADDICTION

do you understand the concept of addiction? no, do you really? i see a recognition of it's existence absent in your words above

so what do we do about the lessons of prohibition and addiction?

in my mind, we balance them: the rules of prohibition previal for all drugs for which addiciton is lower than a certain threshold

and cocaine, meth (stimulants ar ehighly addictive): nope, criminalize the fuck out of them

heroin, opiates, morphine, oxycontin, the whole family of endorphins (the very fucking biochemical language of pleasur ein the brain): PURE OPPRESSIVE PERSONAL LIBERTY DESTROYING EVIL

being on heroin is worse than being in prison, because in prison, at least you still own your mind

do you feel me on the lessons of addiction?

are you willing to honestly appraise the value of that concept against what oyu have said?


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

[ Parent ]

There are worse things than addiction (none / 0) (#303)
by pyro9 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:09:12 AM EST

do you understand the concept of addiction? no, do you really? i see a recognition of it's existence absent in your words above

so what do we do about the lessons of prohibition and addiction?

If our current policies prevented addictions, I might be more open to that argument, but clearly, they do not. All they do is take people who are probably already addicted and make them MORE dysfunctional in society. One thing I DO know about addiction is that otherwise socially functional people are a LOT more likely to abstain than socially dysfunctional people.

As long as we pretend that the disease of addiction is a criminal rather than a medical and psychological problem, we will NEVER get addiction under control. We will never succeed when our "treatment" for the social problem of addiction is to foreclose the addicts' opportunities to become productive citizens and throw them into an intensive howto course in crime.

I also know that there is promising research into using ibogane to treat addiction, but because it is itself a hallucinogen, it is illegal to use it (even under medical supervision) in the U.S. That's not unlike the early research into the use of LSD in guided trips to help with alcohol addiction. That research is effectively dead and buried since LSD is not available by prescription. We will NOT cure addiction by criminalizing potential treatments.

I know that WWI produced a fair number of socially functional opiate addicts when they recieved morphine after combat injuries and heroine failed to relieve their addiction. The reason they were functional and street junkies are not is that they were functional before their addiction.

I know that many in political power (such as Bush Jr.) hypocritically demand that drug users should go to jail, but certainly haven't yet turned themselves in.

I firmly believe that if we took the billions we waste on interdiction and incarceration every year and channel them instead into programs that treat the roots of addiction, we will actually have LESS addicts than we do now. We will certainly have less drug-related violence (which affects both addicts and those smart enough to avoid addiction).

In summary, your points make sense if you completely ignore the the real objective of curing the addict and focus on punishing people for psychosocial disorders.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
i see a lot of recognition (none / 0) (#412)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:15:57 AM EST

in your arguments of the value of freedom from oppression

and yet you can't see that addiction is probably the greatest oppression on your freedom possible: it robs you of your free will, you become a chemical slave, it becomes all you care about

why is your myopia on that reality so profound?

in the real world there are no solutions that hurt no one on the issue of drug use

i recognize and agree with every single of your problems you illustrate with hard drug prohibition

and i assert to you that add them all up, and they don't rise above the greater negatives of a more permissive attitude towards hard drug use (cocaine, meth, heroin)

really


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

[ Parent ]

Government oppression is the real issue (none / 0) (#417)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:20:31 AM EST

If one wants to oppress themselves, they should have that right, that freedom. It is drug prohibition which is oppresive.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
true (none / 0) (#446)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:53:44 AM EST

if their self-oppression can happen in a vacuum, then yes

but it doesn't

drug addicts become burdens on society


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

[ Parent ]

But not a bigger burden than prohibition is n/t (none / 0) (#453)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:59:14 AM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
true (none / 0) (#457)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:02:12 AM EST

for mildly addictve substances

not true for highly addicitve substances (stimulants/ opiates)


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

[ Parent ]

why n/t (none / 0) (#461)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:06:02 AM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
because (none / 0) (#468)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:14:46 AM EST

the viral spread of heroin addiction in a permissive environment would quickly dwarf all other concerns you could possibly demonstrate

you really don't understand addiction to a highly addicitve substance when combined with human nature do you?


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

[ Parent ]

I think you don't fully understand the cost of... (none / 0) (#470)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:17:07 AM EST

the drug war.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
ever see the movie traffic? (none / 0) (#473)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:20:50 AM EST

all of that in there compared to heroin addiction:

heroin addiction is worse on the scale it would become in the permissive environment you propose

remember?

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

[ Parent ]

Yes I saw it (none / 0) (#478)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:24:52 AM EST

Great movie actually. Requiem for a Dream is another great one, even better in my opinion. If I remember correctly, and I haven't seen it in a while, in the end the dad quits his job as drug czar, because he doeesn't think war is the right approach. I wish you'd stop with this opium wars shit. Its irrelevent. The geopolitical situation is far different now from how it was in the 19th century. The opium wars could not happen today.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
your missing the real lesson of the opium wars (none / 0) (#487)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:35:42 AM EST

how debilitating widespread use of heroin can be on a society

so debilitating it was used as a means of war by the colonial powers

the opium war couldn't happen today as you say

but the debilitating effects of widespread heroin use in 1800s china would be realized again should your permissive attitudes towards heorin see the light of day

luckily, they never will

most people have enough common sense to see what i am saying, in all societies, for a long time

you are a naive deluded fool about heroin addiciton, really


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

[ Parent ]

As others have said... (none / 0) (#495)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:51:24 AM EST

society has changed, and it wouldn't be as bad today.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
Three points (none / 0) (#509)
by daani on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:21:57 AM EST

(a) it was used as a tool of economic war. The goal was not to stuff up chinese society by turning them into drug addicts, it was to redress the trade balance caused by tea.

(b) there was no such thing as heroin in china in the 1800s.

(c) Opium addiction was widespread throughout western society, including American society, around 1900. The main addicted demographic was housewives.


[ Parent ]

You're still missing it (none / 0) (#545)
by pyro9 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:04:15 AM EST

and yet you can't see that addiction is probably the greatest oppression on your freedom possible: it robs you of your free will, you become a chemical slave, it becomes all you care about

What I don't see is how further oppression can possibly be the cure for oppression. In addition, I do not believe that we as a society have a right to opress the individual who has opressed himself. Citizen gets himself addicted to heroine: unfortunate self-inflicted medical condition. Citizen operates heavy machinery while impaired by heroine: A crime against innocent bystanders.

Consider: Someone you personally know and care about ends up addicted to opiates (perhaps after prolonged medical treatment for an injury). Clearly you support drying them out by force if necessary, but afterward, do you support jailing them (where they will most likely resume their opiate abuse) for their nearly inevitable use of street opiates after their prescription ended, or would you prefer treatment for the physical and psychological aftermath of their unfortunate medical problem?


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
You are in super-troll mode today.... (none / 0) (#555)
by ckaminski on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:09:00 PM EST

You've obviously not come from a family of alcoholics, because you praise the fall of Prohibition on one hand, and rail against all drugs on the other, and ignore that one super-popular freely available (for all intents and purposes) one that you can brew in your own basement for fucks sake.

Addiction is bad.  Taking drugs != becoming addicted.

Grow up.


[ Parent ]

I wonder (3.00 / 2) (#111)
by xL on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:51:38 AM EST

Part of me wants to agree with you; The distinction between soft and hard drugs is made by many reasonable people and it's currently at the foundation of most of the more reasonable drug policies world wide. The typical heroin junky also seems a walking billboard for prohibition. But perhaps you should be careful not to generalize. Softdrugs and harddrugs alike have a combination of casual users and hardcore addicts (and many shades between them). It's not impossible to take up cocaine and not turn into a junky asshole (I've got a can full of banker friends to put on the anecdotal scale here), but it's a lot easier to fall into a pattern where the drug starts to control you.

I'm not making a case for looking at legalization of hard drugs here, society is better off if there's at least on some level something wrong with those drugs in people's minds. But a 'War on Drugs' approach is not healthy, especially not the part where the users are treated like criminals. There's also the economic effect where a government by playing hardball against the illegal drug markets, is actually creating scarcity, driving up the revenues (and profits) of the remaining players. It turns the drug trade into a game with constantly rising risks and benefits, which in turn attracts more hard-lined criminals. The U.S. learned this during the prohibition era, I've always wondered why that part of history is usually ignored by drug policy makers.



[ Parent ]
your negative effects are 100% true (none / 0) (#156)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:08:49 PM EST

but they  don't rise above the negative effects of making hard drugs legal.

so the choice is easy: they continue to be illegal.

so there you go, reality: no easy simple answer where no one gets hurt.


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

[ Parent ]

Your logic is better than usual (none / 1) (#169)
by pnadeau on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:07:40 AM EST

But I don't agree with your premise that the costs of decriminalisation outweigh the cost of the 'war on drugs', especially since the more you prosecute that so called war the higher the stakes get and the more you need to give the police special powers to fight gangsters that are more and more entrenched.

Oh and what about the fact that the grand ol US of A, the self proclaimed land of the free etc has the highest incarceration rate in the world, mostly due to the war on drugs? Would you consider that a cost?


"Can't buy what I want because it's free, can't be what they want because I'm..."  Eddie Vedder


[ Parent ]
an acceptable cost (1.00 / 2) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 01:25:33 AM EST

because the alternative, decriminalization or legalization of hard drugs, is more costly on society

legalize marijuana

go after cocaine, heroin, meth even harder

that's the way it should be

all of the effects you mention are completely acceptable, because, unlike you, i'm comparing them to the worse effects in the alternative world of hard drug decrim/ legalization

you don't seem to recognize that

compare and contrast, do you understand the concept?


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

[ Parent ]

What's your take on (party|smart|designer) drugs? (none / 1) (#199)
by xL on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 08:57:35 AM EST

I can go along with you and say ok, we should draw a line in the sand. I'd still keep my reservations about how exactly you should deal with drugs that cross that line, but let's shed that for a second. A more interesting question may be, how do you reasonably define that line? Could you define a measurable quality of any drug (either currently in the market or available in the future) that would be reasonable? I can see where prohibitionists see the current situation as pretty predictable and black-and-white (drugs are bad, m'kay, and alcohol is not 'drugs') and feel alarmed by a situation where things are shades of grey. In that situation, is it really possible to define a cut-off point without it seeming, well, more or less arbitrary?

You might say that the dangers of cocaine, meth and heroin are evident. No contest there. But what about drug X that is '10% less harmful' than cocaine (on the premise that every drug is, more or less, harmful)?



[ Parent ]
i once got in a huge argument about ecstacy here (none / 0) (#255)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:56:51 PM EST

on this site a long time ago

it all centered on parkinson's disease, becuase of the way ecstacy works on dopamine recpetors

i don't want to recreate that argument again, but i'll simply anser your question like this:

for every drug you can imagine, make a graph with x,y, and z:

addiction, inebriation, toxicity

the magic 3 values of a drug for the question of their legality

for the question of legality, you simply define a region: if addiction, inebriation, and toxicity fall below a certain threshold, it should be legal

so nicotine is highly addictive, but it should be legal, even thought the smoking is questionable health-wise, you can see how society is dealing with that with taxes on smokes, social rejection, etc. (why should i pay for the healthcare costs of a nicotine addictied asshole? why should i smell that shit?)

likewise on that graph, alcohol should be legal: mildly addicting, mild bad health effects, moderately inebriating

ecstacy should be legal (but, being a new drug, no one knows about the parkinson's effects yet... we will in a decade or so though for the early adapter heavy users... might be scary and maybe should be illegal)

marijuana OBVIOUSLY should be legal

absinthe SHOULD NOT BE... wormwood's toxicity on the liver is fucking scary

lsd is highly inebriating, but it should be legal WHEN USED IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT... hmmm... but then what about flashbacks? while driving? hmmm... maybe not for LSD

but then psilocybin, magic mushrooms: no flahsbacks, ok, so for magic mushrooms, when used in a controlled environment, should be 100% legal (so if someone walks out a window or picks up a samurai sword while on that stuff, they could be held accountable or someone else, so society should legalize lsd use in HIGHLY CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS and outside that, completely and utterly illegal)

so do you see how i am thinking with the x,y, and z of addiciton, inebriation and toxicity for question of legality?

by my cut off points, cocaine, meth and heroin are utterly and clearly verboten: WAY TOO FUCKING ADDICTIVE... not to mention the health effects! (meth certainyl: fry your brain, teeth... cocaine's effects on the heart, even heroin: if you don't dose perfectly... oops, that's a health effect: highly sensitive dosing)

you can't use these drugs in ANY controlled environment... exposure to highly addictive substances is a ONE WAY STREET, ONCE EXPOSED, YOU'RE HOOKED

society owes it's citizens, if there is any empathy or sympathy in this world, to prevent their citizens form exposure to these substances

to disagree with that is to simply NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND WHAT A HIGHLY ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE DOES TO YOUR BODY

people who argue for these drugs being legal simply are in some sort of alternative universe where addiction doesn't work

i mean being in prison is better than heroin addiction: at least you still own your mind!

highly addictive drugs are the largest destroyers of personal liberty, the greatest tools of oppression

you listen to some of these ashoels who argue for heroin, cocaine/ meth legality, i mean they are flat out genuine morons: they rail against oppressive drug policies... they want the freedom to choose a greater form of oppression? what the fuck? fucking morons!


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

[ Parent ]

The metrics make sense (none / 0) (#542)
by xL on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:52:02 AM EST

What seems to be really hard, though, is to create rulings purely based on these metrics and create predictable law. If I take a look at the situation in the Netherlands (where the current policies are pretty much in line with your reasoning), this is what irks me. Consumption and sale of drugs is defined in the Opium law. Controlled substances are mentioned by name here, so basically any substance not specified by the law is legal. New drugs are added through the political process. This is chemical whack-a-mole. It also means that the decision on which drugs to prohibit is more a question of politics than of science.

[ Parent ]
WTF is a flashback... (none / 0) (#556)
by ckaminski on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:16:40 PM EST

I've done more LSD in my lifetime than I care to remember, and I've never had one of these mind-altering flashbacks I keep hearing about...

A sensitivity to light, yeah, but maybe growing up in a basement did that...

[ Parent ]

Alcoholism (none / 0) (#207)
by strawser on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 11:48:43 AM EST

Marijuana is fine. I don't use it, but I've known a ton of people in life who do, some of them using it quite often. Never any major problems, except maybe an increase in their monthly budget for chips and twinkies.

Alcohol, while I'm not saying it should be illegal, seems to me to be far more destructive. I've seen what an alcohol addiction can do to people, and it's really nasty.

All in all, grownups should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves, but alcohol is possibly as destructive as cocaine, though not as quick. It may even be more difficult to stop.



"Traveler, there is no path. You make the path as you walk." -- Antonio Machado
[ Parent ]

wrong (none / 1) (#252)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:29:30 PM EST

ease of addiction, that's the concept your missing in your argument

stimulants like cocaine and meth are FAR higher in ease of addicition than alcohol

it's a question of scale, where's the cut off point?

i agree marijuana should be legal, and i begrudingly accept alcohol's legality (look at prohibition)

that's the cut off point

because for drugs that are more addictive than alcohol the lessons of prohibition become eclipsed by the lessons of what a highly addictive chemical substance can do to a huamn's life


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

[ Parent ]

McDonalds (none / 1) (#238)
by dogeye on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 06:02:21 AM EST

By that logic, unhealthy food should be made illegal too. I've seen a lot people whose lives are more wrecked from awful diets than drugs.

[ Parent ]
or computer games, or porno (none / 1) (#251)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:25:33 PM EST

anything can be addictive

but if you compare these things to heroin, it's liek comparing a mountain to a molehill

scale

study the word

mix it into your argument

get back to me when you have osme appreciation for it


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

[ Parent ]

addiction versus affect on life (none / 0) (#267)
by dogeye on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 10:38:45 PM EST

I wasn't really arguing from the perspective of how addictive drugs are. I was arguing about how negatively they affect the users lives.

Look at Art Alexakis versus an extremely obese person who has been eating McDonalds and Baskin Robins every day for 10 years. I'd rather be him, a 10 year heroin/drug addict, than them, a 10 year unhealthy food addict.

[ Parent ]

addiction versus affect on life (none / 1) (#268)
by dogeye on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 10:39:18 PM EST

I wasn't arguing from the perspective of how addictive those drugs are. I was arguing about how negatively they affect the users lives.

Look at Art Alexakis versus an extremely obese person who has been eating McDonalds and Baskin Robins every day for 10 years. I'd rather be him, a 10 year heroin/drug addict, than them, a 10 year unhealthy food addict.

[ Parent ]

are you for real? (none / 1) (#285)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:19:02 AM EST

do you have any idea what heroin addiction is really like?

try again, and this time, stop talking out of your ass

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

[ Parent ]

whatever (none / 1) (#289)
by dogeye on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:58:39 AM EST

I'd rather be a heroin addict than fat. I'm pretty vain, though. On a side note, I think you should be a little more polite when you argue.

[ Parent ]
huh? (none / 1) (#396)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:55:44 AM EST

you are agreeing that your vanity leads you to a dumb conclusion about the effects of heroin versus the effects of a bad diet? ok LOL

if you hadn't noticed, i could care less about being polite

loud rude honesty beats quiet placid lies any day


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

[ Parent ]

Scale it up (none / 0) (#514)
by DavidTC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:01:34 AM EST

I know you're an idiot, but 'scale it up'? Do you have any idea what percentage of opiate users become addicted?

If addiction worked anything like you were suggesting, everyone on codine would be a heroin addict in two months.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Daily oral/insufflated heroin or cocaine (none / 1) (#67)
by Danzig on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 10:06:50 PM EST

have fewer negative consequences than daily alcohol use. Arguably fewer than marijuana too. Why not just have warning labels like alcohol and tobacco?

And why the fuck should taxes pay for rehab? No one is holding a gun to the user's head.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
oh no negative consequences (2.25 / 4) (#71)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 11:28:25 PM EST

unless you mention addiction of course

and watch those doses, don't want to fry your heart, right?

who needs sleep? who needs sex? who needs food? who needs to talk to people and have a productive life?

we have cocaine and heroin

what a fucking moron

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

[ Parent ]

Alcohol addicts too dumbass. (none / 1) (#122)
by Danzig on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 01:45:32 PM EST

And no one dies from cocaine or heroin withdrawal. Hell, cocaine has no withdrawal.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (none / 1) (#129)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:16:59 PM EST

It's a fucking nasty substance. Withdrawal is a grueling combination of madness and illness, and people do die from it.

I trust you've been a coke addict in order to say that about cocaine as well?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Define addict. (none / 0) (#535)
by Danzig on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 07:57:23 PM EST

You would probably have called me one at the end of the two month period I was doing it all day, every day. Then I just stopped doing it every day, because I ran out of cash. Still do it, but not all the time. I personally never felt addicted, but two months of daily use should be enough to give some sort of withdrawal if the drug produced physical dependency.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
cocaine has no withdrawl? (none / 0) (#158)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:15:27 PM EST

wow, the medical genius you encounter on the internet!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

and so your point about alcohol is what? make it illegal? no, in fact you support my assertion: marijuana illegal while alcohol is legal is stupid. so thanks.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

what a moron

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

[ Parent ]

Obvious (3.00 / 2) (#125)
by Noexit on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:11:17 PM EST

who needs sleep? who needs sex? who needs food? who needs to talk to people and have a productive life?
we have k5!

[ Parent ]
Yes.. (none / 0) (#90)
by mindstrm on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:37:50 AM EST

They have less long-term health risks, but they are quite a bit more addicting... which is a bad thing.  You might say "Oh but if they can get it cheaply and cleanly, that would help". Yes, it absolutely would.. but those people will still be unable to leave the country, travel the world, and so on.  THere is no long term benefit to being heavily addicted to some substance unnecessarily... it's a burden they carry for your whole life. You don't want your kids doing it.  As a society, we SHOULD be actively preventing people from getting hooked on addictive drugs, and we should be helping them get off it when they do.

You can take a few drinks and get your buzz on every night for a week or two on alcohol, and then QUIT, with little effort.. at least most people can.

Try that with heroin, and odds are after the two weeks you say "Ahh, I can handle it, what's another week?".. and pretty soon it's six months later, you blew your life savings, lost 40 pounds, live on donuts, and are considering robbing old ladys at the ATM down the street for your next fix, because that's easier than the prospect of quitting.

Alcohol is bad, too, and alcohol addiction is truly dangerous, but it's not as addictive.  I've seen plenty of poeple who thought they could handle it, as they could with weed or booze, and end up screwed up for life.

[ Parent ]

To play devils advocate (none / 0) (#98)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:53:11 AM EST

"Yes, it absolutely would.. but those people will still be unable to leave the country, travel the world, and so on"

Why? If the substance is legal everywhere then why this restriction?

OTOH I agree with you entirely, Heroin and cocaine should remain illegal but the penalty be changed from prison time to custodial rehab. The stay would be shorter (currently you can be put away for years for heroin possession) and thus cheaper for taxpayers.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Custodial rehab? (none / 0) (#124)
by Danzig on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 01:56:19 PM EST

How is that different than prison? You can get drugs in prison, and I hear the best way to make new connections in a strange city is to attend NA meetings. I mean, I'd prefer custodial rehab too, but it won't stop people from making a personal, private decision.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
different in perspective (none / 0) (#126)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:12:28 PM EST

somewhere you're treated as a human, still have rights, no criminal record, just that you have to be there and get clean, and populations would be kept smaller so a handle could be kept on any drugs slipping in under the radar.

I also wanted to point out that the punishment currently doesn't fit the crime - possession of heroin carries a max of five years or thereabouts in the UK, and that's if it's a small enough quantity that they don't charge you with intent to supply. It's not helpful and it's punishing someone who really needs support.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Excuse me. (none / 0) (#532)
by Danzig on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 07:47:16 PM EST

If you are forced to go to rehab, you are not treated as a human, nor do you still have rights.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
Because (none / 0) (#128)
by mindstrm on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:16:06 PM EST

What I mean is that it's NOT legal everywhere, and expecting it to be anytime soon is pure fantasy. Travelling internationally with heroin or cocaine is like begging to be thrown in prison, and it's the countries with the shittiest prisons that will give you the worst sentences.

[ Parent ]
In the hypothetical world where it's legal in... (none / 0) (#131)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:21:14 PM EST

the US, I was assuming we were going to go as far as talking about the consequences of it being legal everywhere. Otherwise we can use the same misguided argument we use now - Junkies steal stuff to feed their habits (when in other countries), heroin will see you end up in jail! (in other countries) etc etc. I think the debate is more useful if we assume it's the same everywhere.

Feel free to disagree though.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
U.S. influence (none / 0) (#240)
by pyro9 on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 08:41:15 AM EST

Of course, once the U.S. government stops applying political pressure to other countries to make sure they continue to prohibit recreational drugs, it they WILL become legal in more places.

It seems the prohibitionists in D.C. aren't con tent with filling American prisons with non-violent offenders.

For a country calling itself the land of the free, we sure have a large prison population!


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
I don't want kids. (none / 0) (#123)
by Danzig on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 01:53:30 PM EST

But if I did, I'd rather they be addicted to (legal) heroin or cocaine than alcohol or marijuana. You can have a few lines and get your buzz on every night for a month or two on cocaine, and then QUIT, with little effort. At least most people can.* It is maybe a little more addictive than alcohol if you snort it, but you are more functional coked up than drunk. Heroin, well, never been physically addicted, but from what I hear getting off is easy enough. Staying off is the hard part, but how long are your vacations going to be?

Unlike alcohol, heroin's negative effects are largely due to the price, impurities, and method of administration. If was as cheap as a bottle of wine, no one would be robbing banks to pay for it.

*Except for free lines, which do not count. Then again, how many people would drink for two weeks and then never again in their lives?

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
Err... (none / 1) (#132)
by mindstrm on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:24:11 PM EST

I think you are trolling, but on the off chance you aren't:

I'll grant you many of the negative aspects of cocaine & especially heroin addiction are due to the fact that it's illegal. Clean, standard potency drugs with safe ways to administer them would go a long way towards harm reduction.

Don't for a minute, though, pretend pure, cleanly administered heroin has no ill effects; it totally messes with your digestive system, severe constapation, messes with your blood presure, heart rate, accidental overdose is much, much easier than with alcohol, even in known quantities.  Even when sniffing or smoking. Thinking it's somehow safe because you aren't injecting it is just ignorance.. you can get just as hooked.

YOU may be able to do it and walk away, and perhaps never do it again.. but a LOT of people won't.   Most people who binge on coke for a month on coke would find it quite difficult to stop. Heroin, even moreso.. it's a brutal addiction to quit.  It's also not something you know up front.. many people think they can handle it, but only some actually can.  

Unlike marijuana, opiates are controlled for a very good reason, as is cocaine.. an extremely high potential for chronic and life threatening abuse.

[ Parent ]

Try injecting pure booze (none / 1) (#159)
by schrotie on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:17:34 PM EST

And see if you make it to the phone to call the ambulance. Doctors with access to the clean stuff seem to be able to survive decades of opiate abuse. Impossible with alcohol.

Heroin is not even particularly addictive ... if one does not inject something close to the lethal dose directly into the blood. Anyway, breaking the physical addiction seems to be a minor nuisance regardless of what drug you use. Breaking heroin addiction might be intense pain (which can be circumvented with methadone). But it's the psychological addiction that brings users back to their drugs.

And psychologically heroin seems to be the ultimate addiction (though the fall back rate is not higher than with nicotine addicts). I'm glad I have never come close to using anything harder than alcohol, but I heard first person reports about heroin. Seems to be the ultimate choice if you want all the fun without anything of life.

What if opiates were legalized and sold as freely as other legal drugs - but only in low dozes that don't lead to addiction faster than alcohol. Wouldn't new users choose the legal stuff? Sure a significant population of opiate addicts would build up. But would there be more addicts all together? As far as I know our rate of alcoholics is similar to the rate of opium addicts in southeast Asia before the ban. And that rate is similar to the alcoholic rate in certain monkey populations that live near tourist centers and have easy access to alcohol ...

[ Parent ]

some truth for this stupid fuck (2.00 / 2) (#160)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:29:24 PM EST

say the government made heroin 100% legal

FUCKS LIKE THIS MORON SCHROTIE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO WHINE THAT IT IS A PLOT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO TURN PEOPLE INTO ZOMBIES

why is that?

because this is the truth: hard drugs are the greatest destroyers of personal liberty EVER, IN ALL OF HISTORY

if heroin were illegal, can you fucking imagine society would be like?

we're talking abour heroin, morphine, endorphins

STUDY YOUR FUCKING BIOCHEMISTRY YOU FUCKING MORON

ENDORPHINS ARE THE FUCKING BIOCHEMICAL LANGUAGE OF PLEASURE IN THE FUCKING BRAIN

so you're going to hand this out to people, free? what would happen to society?

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO PERSONAL LIBERTY MORON?

who controls that pleasure stuff, controls the populace, that's what would fucking happen!

you paint such a pretty antiseptic picture of heroin use. so you're a liar, a moron, or a propagandizer

so fucks like schrotie talk about legalizing heroin in the name of personal liberty, when if he really thought out his position on personal liberty in relation to hard drugs, HE WOULD BE THE LOUDEST SCREAMING TO MAKE THEM ILLEGAL

and there you go: the truth

choke on it you stupid fuck


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

[ Parent ]

Oops, missed that one (none / 0) (#165)
by schrotie on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 09:05:37 PM EST

Sorry, I did not realize that the first two decades of the 20th century were void of personal liberty. I thought those were rather liberal times, and the empire did not strike back before the thirties when heroin was banned. Ever saw a heroin commercial? Oh and regarding the biochemistry of your brain. Just to be consistent: stay away from chocolate and bananas. BTW, I'm really not sure what would happen, the question was not purely rethoric. I'm genuinely interested. But I can't scream as loud as you, sorry again.

[ Parent ]
no you can't scream, but you can heap sarcasm (none / 1) (#166)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 09:14:53 PM EST

but that help your position

the truth:

if the government made heroin 100% legal, morons like you would be the first to complain that it was a plot by the government to rob people of their liberty

right now, you take the contrarian argument without reason, and you would do the same in the alternate reality of 100% legal heroin. that is all that you are about. you're not about the truth of the matter. the difference is, in that alternate reality, you would actually be right.

truth: the REASONABLE observation about heroin and other hard drugs is that they are the LARGEST robber of personal liberty in the history of mankind

i oppose heroin and cocaine and meth

IN THE NAME OF personal liberty

so what do you have to say to me? where is your platform response to someone like me? how do you address someone like me asshole?

because your sarcasm doesn't cut it

because the truth is on my side


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

[ Parent ]

It sounds like you ARE on meth right now [nt] (2.50 / 4) (#171)
by pnadeau on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:16:51 AM EST


"Can't buy what I want because it's free, can't be what they want because I'm..."  Eddie Vedder


[ Parent ]
No wait I've got it...Angel Dust, that's it.. [nt] (2.50 / 4) (#172)
by pnadeau on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:17:40 AM EST


"Can't buy what I want because it's free, can't be what they want because I'm..."  Eddie Vedder


[ Parent ]
definatly (none / 1) (#293)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:48:35 AM EST

that's the only way this level of hysterical raving could be explained...

oh! I know!

It must be one of those new ADHD drugs or something... you know, one of those "non-stimulant" nor-adrenalin reuptake inhibitors they are pusing now as amphetaime substitutes.

It comes from the pharmacist, so "it must be safe"... nevermind the ravings and racing heart... that's normal!
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

actually it's salvia divinorum (none / 0) (#346)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:12:14 PM EST

nonaddictive! and legal!

the plants die easily unfortunately though


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

[ Parent ]

this makes sense! (3.00 / 2) (#350)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:46:49 PM EST

salvia would make a lot of sense here... it is perfectly fine, normally, but with large doses, it causes a mental break at the NMDA receptor, similar to the disasociative anesthetics. shamans in central america were known to go into several hour long psychotic trances with salvia intoxication. they were so strong, they had to have a "second", or a person that would watch over them in the salvia vision-rituals, because they would hurt themselves otherwise. careful, man... I love halucinogens as much as the next person. LSD is great, and DMT had to be experienced to be belived, but salvia is dangerous. Never before on any drug have I had such psychotic thoughts. watch that stuff, or it's thorazine time...
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]
psst (none / 0) (#410)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:11:45 AM EST

i don't really take it douche bag

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

[ Parent ]
Opression in the name of liberty (none / 1) (#206)
by schrotie on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 10:49:59 AM EST

This particular moron here was not brought up in the land of the free. My indoctrination included two or three things besides liberty. First of all I believe the liberty of an individual can only go so far as not to worsen the lives of other people. I consider the huge drug reined ghettos and the unparalleled prison populations of the US a serious worsening of the affected people's lives. And I doubt (I doubt, I do not know it to be wrong) those conditions are justified by maintaining the suburban paper world of a shrinking majority. I would doubt it even if I believed in utilitarian ethics, which I don't.

I do not believe your so called truth. I would believe it if it were tested and shown to be the way you say. But it has not been tested. What has been tested is giving out heroin to addicts. With seeming success. Such experiments in Switzerland and the Netherlands obviously attracted drug users from all over Europe which made it hard to interpret the results, but the experiments were certainly no utter failure. So it is not as unreasonable as you claim, that legalizing hard drugs might not utterly destroy society. Especially when one considers that there were societies where opium was legal and they did not have more addicts than modern western societies (only our addicts are mostly alcoholics).

So forget about that liberty bullshit that they hammered into your brain for decades. If you were actually interested in what I have to say you would not have insulted me because of arguments I never even intended to use.

And just because the propaganda they used on you is so stupid it makes me shiver: the biggest robber of personal liberty were probably ideas, memes like communism (Stalinism), nationalism and religions like the Islam and Christian believes. Before you blow up again: I'm talking about historic forms of Christian believes on ground of which people were hung drawn and slaughtered.

[ Parent ]

hilarious ;-) (none / 1) (#250)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:22:36 PM EST

addiciton is the greatest oppression a person can ever know

really, that is absolutely true

addiciton to something like morphine IS oppression, IS destruction of personal liberty in a shape and form that makes every single other kind of oppression you can list look like a walk in the park

so you go on with your bad self, you vent your boring insipid typical righteous indignation of a fat rich western teenaged twit who knows nothing of real life, you go on with your boring geopolitics

red herrings, everyone

if you think you win something by rejecting all of the ism's and religions you list above for the comfort to choose drug addiction, you really are just about the largest fool i can possibly imagine

no really, you're fucking hilarious ;-)

keep it up, please ;-)

there's no need to argue you, you make all my arguments against you for me, just by opening your mouth

what a loser

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

keep it up moron, i need to laugh ;-P

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


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

[ Parent ]

It's only Water (none / 0) (#265)
by schrotie on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 07:08:16 PM EST

The need to supply the body with water is the greatest oppression a person can ever know.

Really, that is absolutely true.

I would admit though, that your lack of intelligence must seem rather oppressive to you as well.

When you're over mourning that malady please try to scrape a couple of neurons together and explain, what's so oppressive about addiction to the morphine methadone.

I would not call any 'ism oppressive. Neither would I call the ocean or the air pressure oppressive. It's people that oppress people. But usually they use some popular excuse of the age. Historically religion was the most popular excuse. With secularization this was replaced by various 'isms. In our times it's economic necessity - and drugs in the US.

Hard drugs were legal in many historical societies. Quite often their use was bound to religious rituals, but I know of no case where they were used as an instrument of oppression (with the possible exception of small groups of soldiers like the Assassin). And I doubt that drug addicts make the perfect victims as oppressed citizens.

Anyway, morphine addiction is a very bad thing. Try saying this in Israel: "Compared to morphine addiction national socialism is a walk in the park". Try making according statements anywhere between Berlin and Vladivostok, in South Africa, Cambodia, Korea. You might just feel as stupid as you are.

[ Parent ]

wow, an attempt at sarcasm and wit, outstanding (none / 1) (#286)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:36:09 AM EST

however, you should know that to successfully impress people with sarcasm and wit, you need a prerequisite:

intelligence

;-P

for example, you sarcastically talk about the body's need for water as an addiction, attempting to make humorous light of the fact that i am painting heroin addiction as some sort of... um... unnecessary part of life

LOL

anyway, to cut to the chase my deluded friend, let's draw light instead on our chief source of conflict: the nature of heroin addiction as oppression, and various societal forms of oppression

i assert to you that a biochemical addiction is of a form of freedom destroying zombie creating oppression that the most deranged sadistic torture chamber designer could never design (well wait... he could forcefully inject someone with heroin! outstanding! LOL)

anyway, here's why retard: heroin robs you of your MIND

in other words, it doesn't rob your free will as a tyrant or a social ill might do, it robs you of your DESIRE TO HAVE FREE WILL

do you grock the idea? do you feel me fucktwit?

you're kind of dense, so let's repeat that, so it sinks in:

heroin addiction doesn't rob your free will as a tyrant or a social ill might do, it robs you of your DESIRE TO HAVE FREE WILL

capisce?

instead, you crave heroin

and, after awhile, like an asteorid in a planet's gravitational well, that's all you crave, you get sucked in: you can't fight it, it becomes more important than life itself

an i way out there for you? am i making this shit up?

am i some sort of propaganda spewing henchman of nancy reagan? "just say no" LOL ;-P

or maybe cuntface, I'M STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FUCKING IMMOVABLE UNDENIABLE TRUTH ABOUT HEROIN ADDICTION

gee, i dunno... i'm such a wacky guy, so far out there with my description of heroin addiction LOL ;-P

a shadow of your former self, a zombie, a slave to a chemical, bonded with chains no demonic human being could ever forge

that's a rock of gibraltar for you there dorothy

truth for you, dear simpleminded foolish retard

now muster your breath, get to clacketty clacketty on those keys, summon every, how did you say? "scrape a couple of neurons together and explain" why we should do anything but fight heroin use and heroin users and heroin suppliers

IN THE NAME OF FIGHTING OPPRESSION

dear lord ;-P LOL

see, you and me are the same: we fight oppression

both of our hearts are in the right place

it's just that I'M THE ONE WITH THE FUCKING BRAIN

you meanwhile, seem dead set on striking the football past the goaltender... your own goaltender

LOL

;-)


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

[ Parent ]

Morphine (none / 1) (#299)
by schrotie on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:22:42 AM EST

In the posting I was replying to, you were explicitly saying "morphine" not "heroin". Methadone is a morphine and I can't see Methadone addiction as being much worse than the need for water combined with a minor cold. But if you insist on changing the rules during the game: Methadone can be used to substitute heroin. Oops. So what remains of heroin addiction is the craving for happiness. Bad shit. That is some oppression indeed. Trouble is that heroin produces the greatest happiness currently available on planet Earth. And people who tasted it tend to be hungry for more.

Morphine addiction certainly impedes your freedom to a large degree. But there are (were?) not so few people who manage to combine a productive life with morphine addiction, even over prolonged periods of time. Obviously such are people who have easy access to the drug, i.e. doctors. If there are indeed such examples your universal claim of Morphine = ultimate oppression must be logically wrong. The usually extremely oppressive nature of heroin addiction is not due to the drug alone but due to its combination with the common zero tolerance politics that make it very hard (and expensive) to obtain the drug. If heroin was as accessible (and cheap) as water the situation of the addicts would look very different. Question is, how would it look. Maybe bad, but certainly not as bad as the situation of people was in German concentration camps. Is it possible to be continually high? I don't think so, but anyway nobody is continually high. The addicts have to spend the time between highs to acquire the drug. If the drug were easily available, that time could be spend in whatever way the addict wants to spend it. If you consider the time spent high to be not "free" there still remains considerable freedom between highs. The most oppressed people in history (e.g. in concentration camps) had no such time.

What do you estimate: if heroin were legal, how many people would go for it. Not me and maybe not you. I can imagine few people I know who would choose such a life.

You are perfectly convinced that you are right. You are so convinced of it, that you ignore most of my arguments and rather insult me. If you are so convinced, why bother to insult me (or do call this a discussion)?

[ Parent ]

because the lies you spew hurt innocent people (none / 1) (#409)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:11:09 AM EST

by painting heroin use as anything but a road to hell

i am passionate that deluded fools like you admit to the inadequacy of your understanding of what you get when you combine a highly addictive substanc elike heroin and human society

i know what that means

you apparently do not understand or refuse to admit what what heroin use does to people in real life

what is your problem?


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

[ Parent ]

Ahh, I understand now! (none / 1) (#413)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:17:14 AM EST

We must have faith in this matter!

It's a religious issue!

It's a religious dogma that something is bad in and of itself, ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Given that, I claim religious persecution on this matter, and that the establishment clause of the constitution restrict the government in it's ability to rule on this matter.

...

We are so far from a rational debate on the subject, why not...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

truth (none / 1) (#444)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:52:31 AM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone

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

[ Parent ]

What you fail to understand is.. (none / 1) (#448)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:55:16 AM EST

Just because something has negative effects, that doesn't make it, in itself, absolutly evil. Water can have negetive effects if you drink to much of it, but that doesn't make water itself evil.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
water is necessary (none / 1) (#456)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:01:21 AM EST

heroin isn't

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

[ Parent ]
Fine, caffeine then n/t (none / 0) (#462)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:06:55 AM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
you can't do this with caffeine (none / 1) (#467)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:12:31 AM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

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

[ Parent ]
the point is (none / 0) (#472)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:20:18 AM EST

Caffeine can have negative effects, but that doesn't mean its absolutely evil. Heroin has more negative effects, but its still not absolutly evil.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
heroin addiciton (none / 1) (#475)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:22:31 AM EST

is about as close to absolute evil as you can imagine in this world

worse than war in it's effects on societies

at least in a war you are fighting for something, fighting for your free will

the debiliation zombification of society by hard drug use on the other hand is all about destruciton of free will from within

(shudders)

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

[ Parent ]

As an aside (none / 0) (#484)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:31:19 AM EST

On a more philosophical level, do you think freedom, or happiness, is more important. The way I see it, freedom is important because it leads to happiness.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
whatever asshole (1.33 / 3) (#490)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:40:59 AM EST

heroin addiction isn't happiness just as much as it IS oppression

i loathe and despise you

you're so fucking full of shit about heroin addiction it isn't even remotely funny

you're utter poison to your society and your friends and family and anyone else your naive words touch

your blindness and idiocy about heroin addiction encourages nothing about oppression and unhappiness

how's that you fucking asshole?

why don't you go shoot up some heroin?

fucking pathetic loser

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

[ Parent ]

I've never actually done heroin (none / 0) (#493)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:49:52 AM EST

and I don't think I really want to. I've smoked opium, but to me, the negative consequences of using heroin are a bit much. The thing is, so are the negative consequnces of prohibition.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
whatever moron (1.33 / 3) (#497)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:52:40 AM EST

the effects of prohibition are less worse than the effects of widespread dependence

the opium wars


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

[ Parent ]

why not? (none / 0) (#477)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:24:01 AM EST

you don't need caffeine either, and it's also addicting.

logic and evidence, please! (and no, more links to the wiki on the opium wars don't count as evidence for this one)

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

the use of caffeine (none / 1) (#482)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:29:25 AM EST

is unnecssary, but the costs of its addiction is trivial

meanwhile, heroin use is equally unnecessary, but the costs of addiction is humongous (on society, in the creatio of zombies who seek nothing else out of life)


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

[ Parent ]

but absolutes don't come from piles of evidence (none / 1) (#485)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:33:04 AM EST

and thats the real point. Absolutes come from god, or some other such entity. Its one thing to argue that legalized heroin is worse than some other things, but once you get into absolutes, you get into religion.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
once i get into heroin (none / 1) (#491)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:41:23 AM EST

i get into hell


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

[ Parent ]
Slightly off topic but... (3.00 / 2) (#414)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:17:35 AM EST

Before we got into this debate I used to assume you must be a reasonably intelligent person because you quoted William Blake in your sig.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
I am not to judge (3.00 / 2) (#494)
by schrotie on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:51:05 AM EST

There is a switch available. You can switch on euphoria for a considerable part of your life - by using drugs. Doing this is a pathetic choice in my opinion. There are people galore who choose other means to turn that switch: mountaineering, marathon, deep meditation. People who perform such activities seek the same thing as drug users. I consider such a choice to be not nearly as pathetic. And why? Might be indoctrination or whatever. I don't care. I am not to judge people's choices as long as they don't impede other people negatively.

Imposing the worst life that is possible in western societies on people who make choices that you despise, even though the choices only affect the people who make them, is immoral in my ethics. Especially when enforcing zero tolerance you create a vicious circle and lock the users into a condition that you despise. That is immoral and hypocritical in my ethics.

Heroin addiction usually is hell - to a large degree due to the draconian politics against anything that has to do with heroin. By making the life of heroin users miserable you close all exit doors to their condition. I am not sure whether (partial?) legalization would solve the problems. It would certainly destroy a huge market for organized crime and it would put an end or vastly diminish drug related crimes that happen to pay for the artificially very high prices of drugs. You wouldn't recognize the criminal statistics. It would soften a lot of the misery imposed on addicts.
Such a simple measure would win the war against drug cartels and do a lot to alleviate the situation of the people who are already addicted. And it would close many routes to becoming a user of hard drugs, since youths would not have to purchase their pot (or whatever upsets their parents the most) from people who try to sell them more profitable stuff. Indeed drug peddlers would disappear from our children's lives.

So what is the downside? You fear that many more people would become addicted. I doubt that, but it is a possibility that has to be evaluated very carefully before taking any measures. The war on drugs has failed and continues to fail in such an impressive manner that alternatives have to be discussed. I never said I advocate the legalization of heroin, I said I wonder what would happen. Your religious zeal seems to have blinded you completely for any of my arguments. By rudely attacking anybody who tries to think about novel ways of dealing with drugs (pun not intended) you are the worst possible advocate of the people you seemingly pity so much.

I am not lying, I am stating my opinion and I'm using facts I know to give substance to my thoughts. I do not intend to embellish drug addiction. It is a bad thing. Maybe not as bad as concentration camps, but so what? What a stupid comparison. I am trying to be rational. You are passionate and that might be excusable depending on your history. However, I am thoroughly sick of being continuously insulted and accused of lies without getting even the slightest hint of arguments or disproving of my arguments from you. If you insist on your dogma, so be it. I am here to discuss and real discussion has not even begun. So let this be good bye, we'll meet again in another discussion, when you are hopefully your old rational self again.

[ Parent ]

you keep saying this... (none / 1) (#295)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:52:33 AM EST

that if heroin was legalized, that I'd be saying it was some government plot...

why?

and why do you pretend to know what I think?

I'd vote immediatly for anybody that ran with that on their ticket. Maybe even Bush... shudder the thought.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

it's just a rhetorical line of thought (1.00 / 2) (#340)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:51:43 PM EST

you know, thinking about consequences of things, an intellectual exercise: "if... then..."

i know it's hard for you

LOL ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

not quite (none / 1) (#351)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:48:15 PM EST

it's not rhetorical if you say "you" in the first person... then it's putting words in somebody's mouth. not to mention it's still an unfounded assumption or otherwise wishfull thinking.
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]
oh ok! thanks for that (none / 1) (#407)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:08:19 AM EST

it was very helpful

(wtf?)

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

[ Parent ]

biochemistry (none / 0) (#296)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:59:29 AM EST

"endorphins are the f*$king biochemical language of pleasure in the f*$king brain"

If you know so much about biochemistry, you'd know that was incorrect, yes?

That techinactly, with regards to reinforcement and most traditional models of learning and dependence, that dopamine is the "language of pleasure" in the brain?

Yes, stimulation of the mu-opioid receptor can lead to a release of dopamine, which in turn causes pleasure, but that opioids themselves do not.

If you know so much about biochemistry, you'd know that serotonin can cause a similar sensation of pleasure, and similar dependency, yes? Witness all the ravers with MDMA.

Do you even know why, evolutionarily speaking, why the endorphin system exists? Like how it relates to the fight-or-flight reflex, not the direct pleasure centers?

Your ignorance of the subject is cracking at the seams...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

that's really fascinating (none / 0) (#338)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:50:02 PM EST

pray tell oh great wise one, when you are done with your red herring lessons on basic brain chemistry that have nothing to do wih the central point here, what happens when you artificially mess with endorphin levels in the brain?

in other words, oh great biochemistry professor, can you explain to what ahppens when you introduce endorphins into the mammalian brain?

toi get right down to it, since you are so great and wise about these things, can you explain to us what addiciton is, how it works?

or does the very concept of artificial addiction to an externally supplied supbstance not exist in your alternative reality?

LOL ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

sure, why not... I'm bored today (none / 1) (#352)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:22:05 PM EST

you asked for it, so why not.

We have endorphins because they block the basic pain response, allowing for rational though. It's an evolutionary adaptation that developed after the pain response.

Pain is an important response, you see. It's one of the basic features of even the most rudimentary nervous system. This protects the creature, as it signals problems. When pain is stimulated, it brings the source of the pain to the attention of the host. If you didn't have pain, you wouldn't be able to notice problems with yourself. Wittness the rare condition of being born without pain receptors. These unfortunat individuals do things like grab hot pans, or scratch themselves bloody, because they don't realize it's harming themself.

Unfortunetly, pain can be debeliating, too. If you were being attacked by a wild beast, it would cause great pain. So much so, that you probably wouldn't be able to fight back, or otherwise flee.

So enter endorphins. They are produced by the body to limit the pain sensation. (Note - NOT the reward sensation!) The body will release endorphins when the pain sensation gets too high, in a positive feedback loop. The endorphins produce a clarity of thought that blocks the pain at the spinal-cord level.

This allows you to ignore the pain, and deal with the situation at hand. This is a strict evolutionary advantage, as creatures with endorphins will be able to survive more situationsn than those without.

These are very old developments, evolutionarily speaking. We find endorphin receptors in many creatures. High level creatures (like humans) have developed advanced control of the pain sensation and it's opposite, endorphins. You need both to function, and a fairly delicate balance needs to be maintained.

Now, to dependence and addiction.

Normally, your body produces all of the endorphin it needs. This is managed by monitoring the endorphin levels in the body, and calculating the work necessary to keep that level.

The problem with introducing foreign endorphin analogs into the body, is that the body reads them incorrectly. It thinks the stimulation at the endorphin receptors is caused by the levels it is producing, so it doesn't need to produce as much.

So, the more you take, the less the body needs to produce. Withdrawl symptoms are the reaction to this. When you remove the external source of endorphin, your body is still not producing enough, and the delicate balance is thrown off. You needed those endorphins for many things, so you get sick.

After about 8-14 days or so, your body will start to produce its own endorphins again, because of the negative feedback, and the withdrawl symptoms go away.

I know this empiricly, as I've seen it myself. When I stop using (several times a year), it sucks for a bit more than a week. Then it goes away, and things are more or less back to normal.

Note, that none of this involves the reward system of the brain (dopamine)! It's not really involved! In fact, many people, when given opioids for the first time, don't like it! It doesn't stimulate dopamine, so it doesn't give them a direct reward! All of the craving comes from other sources.

So yes, I know what addiction is.

I also know what dependency is. It's very different.

You seem to be unable to understand this difference, though. Lots of people are dependent on things, like thyroid, insulin, or water. Yet we don't call them "addicted". Addicted is when something negativly impacts your life, and you want to stop! At least according to the DSM.

Try to do some research before you spout off on subjects!

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

so exactly what have you proven? (1.00 / 2) (#394)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:54:03 AM EST

you take the lessons of prohibition and weigh them against the lessons of addiction

what happens is that for less addictive substances: alcohol, marijuana, caffeine: prohibitions lessons previal

and more addictive substances: cocaine, meth, heroin: addicition's lessons prevail

oh i'm sorry! DEPENDENCY'S lessons

LOL ;-)

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

[ Parent ]

evidence please (none / 0) (#398)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:57:18 AM EST

You have still to show a single shred of evidence for your point that opiates will lead to dangerous problems.

Without that, what is the lesson from addiction, that so greatly outweighs the problems of prohibition (which you admit to understanding)?

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

you need evidence (none / 1) (#406)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:07:18 AM EST

that addiction is um "bad" and that heroin is um highly addicting?

are you ok?

seriosuly dude, what is your fucking problem that rocks of gibraltar of truth escape you?


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

[ Parent ]

yes (none / 1) (#408)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:09:24 AM EST

because of the issue you have made of it, where you carefully avoid any hard evidence.

I don't care how obvious it is.

I don't care if it sounds stupid to you.

It's the point of contention in this "debate", and you havn't put your money where your mouth is.

Show something. Anything!

Otherwise there is nothing to debate, as you have brought nothing to the table.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

truth (1.33 / 3) (#443)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:50:58 AM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

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

[ Parent ]
Why hand it out for free? (none / 0) (#534)
by Danzig on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 07:49:25 PM EST

When you could sell it for a profit?

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
Heroin not particularly addictive? (none / 0) (#551)
by mindstrm on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:39:41 PM EST

Heroin is VERY addictive... if you think you can't get hooked easily because you aren't using "close to the lethal dose" you are very, very mistaken.

Also... tolerance builds much faster with heroin, you can measure the change on a daily basis almost.

Again, I agree that most of the problems associated with heroina ddiction are due to the fact that it is illegal, and that clean, clinical sources of it would go a long way towards harm reduction. I'm definately 100% in favor of this type of system.

I just think it's a huge mistake to downplay the addictive potential of heroin.

You can get a little alcohol buzz on every night for a week or two and quit easily.
Try the same thing with heroin, and most people won't stop if they have a choice.


[ Parent ]

Facts are hard to find (none / 0) (#552)
by schrotie on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:50:19 PM EST

Very hard indeed. So much propaganda from all sides surrounds heroin ...

I don't know. I was concluding that heroin cannot be very addictive from the fact that it was sold freely for two whole decades before being banned. Its most important function was as a cough medicine. It was also a painkiller, and a supposedly non addictive alternative for morphine addicts. There were hundreds of medical studies on heroin in the beginning of the 20th century and most of them favorable. There must be a reason that people believed heroin to be non addictive. I assume that reason is that it is indeed not particular addictive - if you don't use very high doses that mess with your endorphine levels. And using it as cough medicine is certainly far from applying high doses. There are dozens of substances that get you hooked faster on lower dozes.

I have said it before but I obviously cannot repeat it too often, since I'm continuously accused of embellishing heroin: I do not rate heroin as the most evil substance on the planet but it's probably in the top ten. If one uses it in high doses (as is commonly done when it's used recreationally) it will induce addiction very fast, and it will be a physically and psychologically very strong addiction that has every potential to utterly ruin your life.

[ Parent ]

Or you could drink heroin. (none / 0) (#533)
by Danzig on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 07:48:23 PM EST

You know, like alcohol.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
international travel (none / 0) (#140)
by Polverone on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 03:51:27 PM EST

You might say "Oh but if they can get it cheaply and cleanly, that would help". Yes, it absolutely would.. but those people will still be unable to leave the country, travel the world, and so on.

Whatever you may think of it, most Americans don't have a passport or a burning desire to travel internationally. Leave the country and travel the world seem to be equivalent, so I'm not sure what "and so on" stands for. If the worst part of broad legalization is that the number of American tourists decreases, we truly live in the best of all possible worlds.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]

sin taxes, not taxes silly. (none / 0) (#503)
by Nyarlathotep on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:20:35 AM EST

And why the fuck should taxes pay for rehab? No one is holding a gun to the user's head.

Its an "externality," same as poluting. Tax laws should attempt to bill the poluter or the drug pusher for the resources they consume. In the case of drugs, lots of money will spent on rehabilitation regardlss, but there are high social costs to having adicts try to pay for their own rehabilitation, so you basically get two choices (a) tax the drugs themsevles to pay for rehabilitation, or (b) someone will talk the government into paying for it outof YOUR income taxes. Its the same thing with poluting, you'll eventually need to pay for it if they guy doing it isn't made to payfor it when he does it because he won't be able to pay for it later. A zero tax system is totally unrealistic, so I just said that the drugs themselves need to be taxed, i.e. a sin tax.

A subtle detail of my statment was that "sin taxes" should only be allowed to be spend on rehabilitation & associatged social costs. Otherwise, the government will just see them as a source of cash, and then argue that they need more income taxes to pay for the rehabilitation programs. Its a subtle point, but one does need to control the flow of money inside the government, and we don't do that very well today.
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
[ Parent ]

Medical costs.... (none / 0) (#517)
by DavidTC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:32:09 AM EST

...are the red herring of drug legalization. People should stop falling for that trick.

Cigarettes cause lung cancer, which costs the US about five billion a year in medical bills, and a little more than 85% of that cancer is apparently from cigarettes, so let's round that down to four billion dollars.

And that is ignoring the other medical problems cigarettes cause, like low birth weights, asthma, and the other huge one, heart disease.

Compares to that, treating a few heart attacks from cocaine or dehydration from Esctacy seems to be a drop in the bucket. Maybe a few dozen million.

Even if 80% of the lung cancer people pay their own way and 80% of the other drug users don't, public treatment of lung cancer would cost more than everything else. (And those percentages are idiotic.)

The only reason it is even a raisable arguement is because health care costs are so totally fucked up in the US it's not funny, and the poor get free treatment at the expense of the slightly less poor.

If someone wants a health care system where everyone pays their own way, fine. If people want one where the government pays for everything, fine. If people want one where the government pays for accidents, and you pay for things that are your fault, fine. I'm not here to fix health care.

But any combination of those is still going to result in more government support of poor people smoking and getting lung cancer than any other drug, even the last, because very poor people will just lie about why they got lung cancer.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

externalities are not just medical costs (none / 0) (#520)
by Nyarlathotep on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:44:30 AM EST

I didn't mean to imply that I though any particular health care system was best.  I just said they are going to make someone with money pay for _rehabilitation_.  If the guy being rehabilitated has no money, chances are that someone will be you via income tax.  Its best to tax the drugs themselves, i.e. make the addicts who haven't hit the bottom yet pay for it.

This is a type of externality really.
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
[ Parent ]

Well, that's easy. (none / 0) (#524)
by DavidTC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:16:54 PM EST

Well, I have no problem taxing the drugs. It's not like they're going to cost anymore than a sugar cube. We could have 10,000% taxes on them and they'd cost about what they cost now.

But rehabiliation costs are another red herring.

We can either offer those, or not. We can support those at government expense, or not, we can make them part of some sort of 'back on your feet' program, or not.

Because once we get rid of the illegality, we get rid of 90% of the damn point in the first place. If you want to get off heroin, just keep living your life, consult a damn doctor, and slowly switch over to methadone, and then nothing.

Right now, addicts who want to quit get no support, outside of 'be locked up for three months'.

But do we need rehabilitation clinics with cigarette smokers? Or alcoholics? Caffeine addicts? Well, yes, in a very small minority of cases, for alcohol, but not in general.

Likewise we wouldn't need them for other drugs. For the 2% who screw their entire life up and can't seem to quit, sure. And we can spend the drug taxes on them, but it won't cost hardly anything.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Maybe when you find a missing book of (2.83 / 6) (#13)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 09:07:59 AM EST

the New Testament, where Jesus turns mint into chronic, at the Jamfest at Jericho.

Wine is intimately involved with Christianity, that's why it's legal and tolerated. The only people who claim marijuana is a Sacrament are Rastafarians and Deadheads, do we really need to listen to their marijuana addled brains?

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure if we agree, disagree or what (none / 1) (#24)
by lostincali on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 01:28:33 PM EST

but I do find your posts about marijuana to be hilarious.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

Thank you kind sir (2.80 / 5) (#28)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 01:52:34 PM EST

Together we can smite the marijuanist menace. I think tonight I shall take some of the children to to the local park and pray for the souls of the "hackey sackers" who have finally found a "sport" their marijuana addled brains and damaged reflexes can handle.

[ Parent ]
only as long (2.50 / 2) (#30)
by Altus on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 02:05:47 PM EST


as we need to listen to those lousy drunk ass christians.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]
nah man, you forgot the other reason (3.00 / 6) (#16)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 09:45:43 AM EST

The anti hemp lobby. Hemp was considered a threat by the cotton and (nascent) artificial fibre lobbies. It's cheap, almost impossible to farm badly and very strong and fibrous.

This AND the fear of foreigners is likely the major cause.

It's interesting how the opium Ban originated in California because the fearful whites there were afraid that the yellow people were going to use it to seduce white women, same as the brown people in the south. Odd how noone objects to the use of alcohol to seduce white women.... :)

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
while we're on the economic interest arguments (2.71 / 7) (#23)
by lostincali on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 01:27:22 PM EST

consider the conflict of interest between big pharm companies and proponents of medical marijuana.

A cheap pain/anxiety/nausea reliever that can be produced by almost anyone is the last thing pharm companies want to compete with.

They've got a lot of pull in our government too...

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

They'll fight it (none / 0) (#101)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:57:12 AM EST

Or they'll welcome it as long as the plants are still illegal and you have to buy a pill from them.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Follow the Dollar (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by Pluto on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 03:55:42 PM EST

Interesting points.

I'm still contemplating how the US military managed to blow up every single tomahawk missle in our arsenal, a couple of years ago, by carpet bombing dirt and rocks in Afganistan month after month.

And not a single poppy died.
_______________________________________
Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
[ Parent ]

medical heroin is legal (none / 0) (#143)
by speek on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 05:51:22 PM EST

Those poppies are well protected by all, I imagine.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Maybe it shouldn't be (none / 0) (#544)
by Cro Magnon on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:12:12 AM EST

Everyone knows that heroin is one of the most dangerous, addictive drugs there is. Therefore, it's far to dangerous to be used for medical purposes. Sounds logical to me (given the postion on MJ).
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Actually they did (none / 1) (#35)
by LO313 on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 04:06:01 PM EST

That's why we had an amendment to the constitution here in the USA in the early part of the 20th century. A bunch of moralist firmly beleived that getting rid of alcohol would rid the white man of his last vice. Bunch of non-sense but its still got through.

[ Parent ]
Proabition (none / 0) (#93)
by doconnor on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:41:45 AM EST

They may have been wrong, but at least they where consistant.

[ Parent ]
It's an attitude I can respect (none / 0) (#97)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:47:18 AM EST

Not one I agree with, but you have to admire them following through on their convictions.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I mostly agree with you, except (3.00 / 6) (#17)
by daani on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 09:54:20 AM EST

"alcohol and marijuana are approximiately equivalent drugs"

I smoked pot pretty much every day for four years in University. If it affected me, it's been very subtle. If I had been drunk every night for that long I would be a complete wreck. And no way would I have managed to get decent grades. I'm not saying it was a smart thing to do - but alchohol in the same quantities would have destroyed me.

"that marijuana is a gateway drug is pure bullshit"

To this I disagree vehemently. The current marijuana prohibition regime has certainly turned marijuana into a gateway drug. I think a lot less people would consider breaking the law and seeking out a dealer of other drugs if not for the positive experience they have had with marijuana. It's not the drug itself that is the gateway, it's the associations and social habits marijuana smokers adopt in order to score pot. I only did it a few times, because I didn't like it much, but I'm sure I would never of taken acid if I hadn't gotten into a "drug scene" because of marijuana prohibition.

I'm not sure if anyone has ever actually said this, but it rings true to me: "They lied to me about pot so I didn't believe them about smack."

[ Parent ]

IAWTP (none / 0) (#95)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:45:56 AM EST

It's a gateway drug not just (and possibly not even) because it puts you in contact with the drug underworld, but because it blows all your perceptions and all your knowledge about drugs out of the water.

"If they said marijuana was bad and makes people go on killing sprees and shit, but I just feel a bit giggly and a bit dumber than usual, maybe the duplicitous fuckers weren't telling the truth about the rest"

That was my attitude for a while, thankfully I knew enough from more reputable sources to keep away from the Big Bad's, but I had some fun experimenting with the mild-mid grade illegal substances which I probably wouldn't have done if dope had been legal. Hey, what am I saying, keep it illegal! I'd never have done all that cool shit otherwise....

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
so you're saying (none / 0) (#108)
by aphrael on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:46:33 AM EST

that it's a gateway drug because it reveals the fact that you've been lied to (about what marijuana's effect is), making you less willing to trust the claims about other drugs? seems like the fault there lies with the people telling the lies.

[ Parent ]
Precisely. (none / 0) (#113)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:59:55 AM EST

Imagine someone tells you that drinking a pint of beer is bad for you, and that drinking 10 bottles of whisky is bad for you, and makes no distinction in how bad they are relative to each other and gives you as little onfo as possible about them, squashes debate wherever possible etc etc.

One day you have a pint of beer and nothing bad happens, it tasted pretty good and you feel ever so slightly happier, more confident, whatever. What (other than the taste and other practical considerations) is to stop you then bingeing on whisky? All the information you have to go on is that someone told you beer and whisky are bad, and beer doesn't seem all that bad to you.....

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Good points.. (none / 1) (#117)
by awgsilyari on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 12:54:25 PM EST

I smoked pot pretty much every day for four years in University. If it affected me, it's been very subtle.

A few years ago I would have agreed with this. But as I've backed off my use over time, I've come to an inescapable conclusion: marijuana insidiously saps your ambition. Sure, I'm a smart guy, and THC hasn't really diminished my capacity to think, but it sure as hell took several years (some of what should have been the most important years of my young life in terms of finding my direction) and frittered them away.

Now, don't get the wrong image. I'm not the hippy type sitting in a circle passing the bong all day. I tend to smoke by myself, in small quantities, but at regular intervals. I go (well, used to go) for the "continuous stone" and I think that is what has been so detrimental.

In stark constrast, many hopeless alcoholics are full of ambition and actually accomplish quite a lot despite the fact that they are physically destroying themselves.

It's not the drug itself that is the gateway, it's the associations and social habits marijuana smokers adopt in order to score pot.

I agree completely with this. I refuse to acquire weed through "dealers." Typically a friend would acquire it in quantity and I'd get it that way. I don't interact with the sort of slime that sells drugs, and if I were forced to (if, for example, all my friends quit doing it) I'd simply stop doing it rather than go down into that shithole.

Not surprisingly, it was about the same time I took up this particular practice, that I ceased all other drug use.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
[ Parent ]

Not sure if I had ambition to begin with (none / 0) (#118)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 01:02:48 PM EST

but I don't have much now, beyond being comfortable and well enough off.

OTOH I have a well paid programming job and my non dope-using friends from school aren't doing anywhere near as well through directed ambition (lol!) as I have just by sort of wandering into things....

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Yeah... (none / 0) (#120)
by awgsilyari on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 01:29:42 PM EST

What I mean by "ambition" isn't what most people might typically take it to mean. I too have a high paying job, a cushy house, a fiancee-soon-to-be-wife, two dogs, a late model car, etc. My life is comfortable.

But I haven't done what I really want. I've never climbed Mt. Hood which has been a dream for some years now. I still haven't got my own business ideas off the ground. I had plans to continue my higher education after getting my B.S., and I haven't done that either.

I don't blame this entirely on the weed -- I've always been a pretty lazy person -- but it certainly was a major component standing in the way of me doing what I really want to do. Now, at 25, I feel like something has slipped passed me that I can't get back again.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
[ Parent ]

Yeah I get ya (none / 0) (#134)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:28:51 PM EST

You sort of lose the drive to do much but plod along so you likely miss out on stuff or just don't get around to it....

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
your 25 (none / 0) (#141)
by Altus on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 03:57:46 PM EST


you have a good job, family, house ect... your biggest regrets thus far are that you havent climbed mt hood or started your own business.

you dont have a problem.... or if you do, its not the weed.

the fact that you feel like you are lazy because you havent done these things means you have even less of a problem.  Use that feeling that life is passing you buy to motivate yourself to do some of those things.  Im exactly the same way for what its worth... I do a ton of stuff but beat myself up that I dont do more.  It can be very useful motivation, but dont let it eat away at you.

now go climb Mt Hood.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

Kind of agree withh you both (none / 0) (#222)
by Have A Nice Day on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 06:47:00 PM EST

It's possible that hash makes you feel like you're wasting your time when actually you're not, OMFG! We've just found motivation in a paper cylinder!

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Cause and Effect (none / 1) (#146)
by schrotie on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 06:04:00 PM EST

I've once read a longish expertise about cannabis that was written by two drug experts for a court trial. It said (beside many other things) that it is not clear if the amotivational syndrom is caused by cannabis or if persons who are for whatever reasons inclined to that condition are attracted to cannabis. One of the guys (head of drug clinic) favored the second explanation.

Don't get me wrong. Cannabis is a dangerous drug that can ruin your life. It's just not nearly as vile as alcohol. I know a handful of people who were heavy cannabis users. Most of them curse cannabis, but they have no problem staying away from it. My (ex) brother in law is a alcoholic. He's currently clean but that was no easy feat and relapse is always just around the corner. And it ruined his health. If I had to choose the drugs my (currently very young) children will be using, I'd choose cannabis any time. It can ruin your life. So can chocolate (and more thoghroughly). If you are set to ruin your life you'll get it done, with or without drugs. Alcohol can develop a lot of momentum at destruction itself.

[ Parent ]

What you say about ambition rings true to me (none / 0) (#194)
by daani on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 05:04:36 AM EST

But recently I've been living in Thailand. Ambition isn't always looked on as a positive thing here. The Thais aren't against bettering themselves, but they preach moderation before everything else. Ambition can be another word for discontentedness.

Course, that's only sometimes true.

Oh, and any Thai people reading who might be about to flame the farang ngong, I mean *relative* to where I grew up. :)

[ Parent ]

Drugs and the law (2.66 / 3) (#99)
by Peaker on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:53:31 AM EST

cocaine and heroin and other hard drugs like that should NEVER be legal: their quick and easy addiction profile, heavy inebriation/ incapacitation experience, and deathly adverse health effects means these hard drugs are verboten, end of story. there is NO slippery slope.

You are assuming that by making them illegal you are actually reducing their consumption.

By making them illegal, you create a very profitable black market, that creates a huge incentive to get as many people as possible addicted.

[ Parent ]

all of what you say is true, and doesn't matter (1.33 / 3) (#155)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:06:05 PM EST

the war against drugs will always rage, and here's why:
  1. they are simply the wages of civilization. pedophiles will always be born anew, we will never win the "war against pedophilia." so does that mean we stop waging war against pedophiles? no, it's simply the wages of civilizaiton. and so the war on drugs will wage, FOREVER. the war on terrorism will wage, FOREVER. people turn to violence against innocents for political reasons. so terrorism will be with us, forever. do you understand? we are talking abotu the simple unaviodable wages of civilization. you lose.
  2. you win when you can get people to stop empathizing, sympathizing. hard drug use is zombification. people don't want to see their brothers, fathers, sons, neighbors, friends, etc. turn into zombies. when you get people to stop caring about other people, you win. meanwhile, you try to make hard addictive health destroying drugs legal, and you run into parents, sisters, children, friends, neighbors. they outnumber you. these people take a STAND. and when you atually care about someone, there are hard lines in the sand, across which, you do not want to see people go, because YOU LOVE THEM. turning into a zombie is one of them. you lose.
  3. what always blows my mind is how fucks like you say what you say in the name of personal liberty. when hard drugs are THE LARGEST DESTROYERS OF PERSONAL LIBERTY EVER. craven slave to a chemical... supplied by who exactly? here's a funny and 100% true observation which absolutely blows you out of the water: if drugs were legal, fucks like you would be the FIRST to whine that heroin was legalized by the government to control people and turn them into zombies! that observation is so dead on about the blindness people have about hard drugs and legalizing them in the name of personal liberty. IF YOU ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT PERSONAL LIBERTY AND HAD A FUCKING BRAIN AND THOUGHT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN POV, YOU WOULD BE FIGHTING THE LOUDEST FOR MAKING HARD DRUGS ILLEGAL. so you lose, you haven't even thought out the consequences of your own concerns.
fact: every single observation you make about the negative consequences of the war on drugs is 100% true.

also fact: those negative consequences don't rise above the positive effects of making hard drugs illegal, AND don't rise above the much greater negative consequences of making them legal.

in short, you lose, you lose, you lose.

teenagers and young adults think they are invincible, that they live forever, that nothing can hurt them. they resent laws agains their personal liberty into regions of human behavior thy feel perfectly confident they can master. age and wisdom knows the truth: no willpower beats biochemical fact. so teenage losers will be trying hard drugs forever, and if they fucking live, will be spending the rest of their lives wishing they didn't. there is nothing in hard drugs except slavery to a chemical.

the largest destroyer of personal liberty on this planet. and morons rush head long into that, and reap the profits of their teenaged idiocy: death and dependency. you can't stop teenagers from being idiots. and so, forever, a regular crop of headstrong young adults will rush into that void. and what can we do about that? nothing but shake our heads. fucking morons and losers.


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

[ Parent ]

Emotion=1000 Facts=0 (none / 1) (#161)
by tonedevil on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:37:53 PM EST

Thank you again CTS for another in a series of your fact free yet emotion laden rants. Not one verifiable thing in an entire post, you're the smile on the Mona Lisa.

[ Parent ]
what a moron (1.75 / 4) (#164)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:52:55 PM EST

if we were arguing about math or physics, you would have a point

but what are we arguing about genius?

ideology, social policy

there is no magic truth that is already figured out somewhere with all the facts

that you can't understand this means you don't understand human behavior

at worst, you are some sort of sycophant, beholden to magic truth giving authority where there is none, a perfect member of an orwellian state

most probably though you are your usual ivory tower arrogant schmuck, who thinks you have it all figured out, which is impossible, because human behavior is involved

so it's kind of sad really, what you are is politically autistic: you can't see the human beings in the mix

now go back to your computer code, where everything makes sense: you're in the deep end of the pool and you're missing your floaties

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

Oh come off it (none / 1) (#176)
by pnadeau on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:30:08 AM EST

Why do you get to act like you know everything then? You are also wrong about math BTW.


"Can't buy what I want because it's free, can't be what they want because I'm..."  Eddie Vedder


[ Parent ]
who said i know everything? (2.00 / 2) (#180)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 01:19:34 AM EST

i don't and i didn't say that

are you ok?


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

[ Parent ]

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo (none / 1) (#229)
by tonedevil on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 01:14:49 AM EST

Really I loved that post on so many levels. My only regret is that I have but one 3 to award you, CTS.

[ Parent ]
Drugs and the law (1.50 / 2) (#195)
by Peaker on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 05:07:57 AM EST

You are assuming that by making them illegal you are actually reducing their consumption.

By making them illegal, you create a very profitable black market, that creates a huge incentive to get as many people as possible addicted.

[ Parent ]

like i said moron (1.00 / 4) (#208)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:01:12 PM EST

what you say is 100% true

a real genuine accurate negative effect of the criminalization of hard drugs that i wholeheartedly embrace and recognize

do you feel me?

AND ALL OF THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS THAT YOU CAN ENUMERATE OF HARD DRUG CRIMINALIZATION IS STILL LESS THAN THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF DECRIM/LEGALIZATION

do you understand where i am fucking coming from now?


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

[ Parent ]

white devil (none / 1) (#104)
by mpalczew on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:03:54 AM EST

<i> current marijuana laws are a racist legacy. . . . their fathers were drunks from germany or ireland who beat their mothers:</i>
I guess it's only racism if it's the white man keeping the black man down.
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]
Nope, but I don't think it's racist (none / 1) (#106)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:11:40 AM EST

to slate one's own forbears, assuming CTS counts them as forbears of course.

Unless it's racist of me to say the English are overwhelmingly stupid, being English myself. Is it? Or are you overreacting?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
whiggers (none / 0) (#114)
by mpalczew on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 12:27:46 PM EST

I think it's possible to be racist against your own race.  I don't know what race cts is. Unless you have knowledge I don't, you are assuming cts is  German and Irish.  
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]
No, I'm assuming he counts them as forbears (none / 1) (#116)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 12:41:32 PM EST

Not that he is german or irish, because he's not, he's american.

The root of racism is generalisation of the attributes and behaviour of whole groups of people different to you. The English are not different to me. They are a bunch of fucking retards for voting blair back in. Am I racist? Or am I no longer allowed to call anyone anything that could be considered bad because it's "racist" ?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
it's ok to rip on white people (none / 0) (#127)
by mpalczew on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:13:55 PM EST

Or am I no longer allowed to call anyone anything that could be considered bad because it's "racist" ?

If you are generalizing a group of people yeah, it's racist.  However weather it's considered bad is up to your own interpretation.  Was it bad when Bill Cosby dissed the Black American Middle Class?  People certainly thought so.

Now if I said the English were a bunch of retards for voting Blair back in would I be racist?  I was born in Poland, but have lived in the states most of my life.

What would you tell to a Mexican who told you that Mexicans were lazy and couldn't stop having kids(or whatever the stereotype is these days)?
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't call him racist (none / 0) (#130)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:18:40 PM EST

I'd agree with you about the english, regardless of your nationality. And I don't know what I'd say to the mexican guy, but if that's what he thinks then he's more likely to know than I am.



--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
fuck racism, here's my point: (2.50 / 2) (#153)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 07:44:17 PM EST

familiarity breeds acceptance

if i  told you "beware the dangerous drug quinthydrogen dicarbon hydroxide!"

you would go "oh my gosh! sounds scary! what does it do!"

"people take it and become confused and disoriented and nauseous, killing themselves and others in car accidents, becoming addicted and destroying their livers!"

"oh my gosh! make it illegal! that quinthydrogen dicarbon hydroxide is scary stuff!"

but because alcohol is part of the culture of those who wrote the laws in the usa in the 1700 and 1800s, it was accepted

so my point has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with familiarity with something breeding acceptance of it

meanwhile, compare alcohol with marijuana, biochemically, and tell me it makes sense alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't

biochemically, the laws make no sense, they are hypocritical

but HISTORICALLY, they do make sense, based on xenophobia and acceptance

so racism today is not the point: RACISM YESTERDAY IS. i'm not saying anything about racism today. are you telling me there was no racism in the lawmaking in the 1700 and 1800s?

that's what i am saying, so stop trying to make this in to some fucking argument about racism today

you're expanding the argument unnecessarily to understand the point i am making, so you are just willfully refusing to see my point, but not based on any logic, just on some bullshit pc sensitivity

fine, be sensitive about pc hypocrisy, what do i give a shit? it's not important fo rmy point, so stop trying to expand the argument into territory that has nothing to do with what is needed to understand what i am saying

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

[ Parent ]

WRONG! (none / 1) (#210)
by mpalczew on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 01:33:38 PM EST

I was merely making an off-topic comment, on the irony of your first paragraph.  

It's funny to me, how seriously you took it as some kind of attack on mary jane.

I happen to agree with you on the rest of that mumbo-jumbo. Though I think you use way too many words.

compare alcohol with marijuana, biochemically
Well I think you mean, compare alcohol with thc, otherwise the comparison would be meaningless.  But this argumetn is also specious, because biochemically you will find alot of difference.  They interfere with different signaling pathways, they stick around for different amounts of time, they impair different abilities(not really biochem anymore).

Yeah, they are similar, but biochemistry is hardly  the path which will tell you that.

you're expanding the argument unnecessarily
not expanding on this argument, but rather making an aside and possibly starting a new one.

-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

snore... (none / 1) (#249)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:13:39 PM EST

yet another nitpicking asshole

you dance aorund quibbling in the minor points, completely and utterly missing the larger picture i am making

you don't refute the points i am making, you alter the argument into a smaller nitpicking one

whatever, snore...

when you wish to come back to me up here, in the bigger picture, come on up, but i have no desire to dance around with you in the little stuff

here is point i was making about alcohol and marijuana to another nitpicking loser

the BIG PICTURE

can you stay focused on that loser?

LOL

;-)


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

[ Parent ]

We mostly agree with you. (none / 0) (#260)
by benna on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 04:02:40 PM EST

We just wish you wouldn't spew bullshit in support of your argument, because we think it makes ours look bad.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
ah, sweet bullshit (none / 1) (#280)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:32:12 AM EST

so sorry for my bullshit

can i get into your holier-than-thou club anyways? please?

because i care so much for what you think of me and my argument, really, it affects me deeply that random assholes on the internet disagree with the way i argue...

almost as much as it bothers you?

LOL

:-P


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

[ Parent ]

This isn't about attacking you as a person (none / 0) (#283)
by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:52:03 AM EST

Its not about making you feel bad. We are just arguing facts. Is that so difficult to understand?
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
well if you are so antiseptic about it (none / 1) (#288)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:54:54 AM EST

how and why could i possibly bother you?

that oyu are bothered by me assumes then that you are as passionate as i am about the subject, because i'm touching some nerves right?

therefore, you would agree with me completely that dispassionate discourse is about as useful to this debate as shoe polish, mainly because without passion for the subject there is no argument

and therefore, you have no problem with my tone

i mean, you seem to have made it this far without being rattled or put off, right? so you obviosuly can deal motherfucker, so keep on dealing, or fuck off

this is me, this is the way i talk, this is what i am

you don't have to like me

i don't have to care if you don't like me

just like you said: "this isn't about attacking you as a person"

good!

now put your money where your mouth is and fuck off bitch ;-P

in short, so sorry if my tone doesn't jive with your agenda

but you can suck my dick before i'll give a shit about that

still, i'm glad you care about my social hygiene dad, really, it's very touching ;-P

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


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

[ Parent ]

I know what you mean. (none / 1) (#519)
by DavidTC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:40:05 AM EST

While cts is, in fact, wrong here, in my opinion (Although feel free to debate that.), even when he's right, I wish he would just shut the fuck up, because his content-free rants and personal attacks don't actually help anything.

It's like having, in every argument here about politics, terrorism, and now, apparently, drugs, a man who stands on one side and says 'Nuh-uh! And you're a poopy-head!' whenever the other side says anything.

And everyone else on his side, because they are actually attempting to arrive at some version of 'the truth', whatever that may be, are busy collecting their thoughts for a reasoned response. But he's standing there calling their opponents poopy-heads.

For the record, I see where the position 'legalize soft drugs, keep hard drugs illegal' is coming from. But I think it's born out of misunderstanding of hard drugs and addiction (Like cts), and that the only way to stop abuse of them is to legalize them.

But this isn't the thread to have coherent arguments, this is the thread where cts acts like an asshole.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Oh I agree (none / 0) (#531)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:29:49 PM EST

I say legalize them all. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was anti-legalization of hard drugs.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
you are dense. (none / 1) (#269)
by mpalczew on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 10:55:28 PM EST

you dance aorund quibbling in the minor points, completely and utterly missing the larger picture i am making

you don't refute the points i am making, you alter the argument into a smaller nitpicking one

That's because I agree with the points you are making.  It's just that you are completly full of shit, in the way you make them.  

You just go around pulling shit out of your ass.
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

ok dad (none / 1) (#279)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:25:21 AM EST

thanks for the lesson in civilty

you'll excuse me if i disregard it

i say what i say whenever the fuck i feel like saying it, and i'll take into consideration what other people think of me in real life instead

if you hadn't noticed, this is the internet, it doesn't exist for the reasons you think it does: civil discussion

but you keep up your campaign for social hygiene here, it's gonna make a big difference someday, i promise you! i for one am deeply impressed!

LOL ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

good (3.00 / 2) (#308)
by mpalczew on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:25:48 PM EST

yes, ok, fine.  But you are still full of shit.
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]
how uncivil of you to say so LOL ;-P (nt) (none / 0) (#336)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:43:38 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
I'm even less civil in real life nt (none / 1) (#384)
by mpalczew on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:35:43 AM EST


-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]
i'm actually more civil in real life (none / 0) (#391)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:45:44 AM EST

there you go, dr. jekyl and mr. hyde ;-P


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

[ Parent ]
Functional Opiate-Eater (3.00 / 5) (#133)
by endymion on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:25:46 PM EST

What's with this crusade against heroin I've seen you have for a while now?

Do you even know any Junkies?

And I'm not talking about the fucks on the street that are looking for an way to get the street to kill them. I'm talking about people you've probably talked to. People that looked perfectly normal. People you wouldn't suspect were using.

Some of us are able to maintain this really easily, and it's more than you think. With me, I've been using fairly regularly for over three years now. It's the best thing to happen in my life. It's the only drug (and I've tried most, including most obvious prescription ones) that has fixed my social-anxiety, without the bad effects.

Of course, you probably assume that I'm some slacker lowlife. That I'm blowing all my money on this, and have a spiral of self-destruction going on. This is simply not true. Most of that time was spent working in a genome lab, working on the Human Genome Project, among other thing. My free time is usually filled with music, games, and other fun hobbies.

So yes. I do meet the definition of dependency with opiates. But not addiction. For it to be an addiction, it has to be a burden in your life. It just takes a bit of education and planning on how to deal with things.

Now, I'm expection a knee-jerk response to this, about how I don't know what I'm talking about, or that I still have a "fall" waiting for me, or other crap. If possible, though, I'd love it if you would answer me one thing:

How would it benefit society to throw me in jail, like you want to do? The lab I work at would be set back quite a bit. Research would be delayed, and lives would be ruined or strained.

Why can't we leave well enough alone?!
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

though they're often lumped together (3.00 / 2) (#145)
by lostincali on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 05:54:50 PM EST

the "addiction profiles" (if that makes sense) of Heroin and stimulants like Cocaine or Meth are radically different. But, don't expect many people to listen when you try to talk about it. Overall, they're pretty destructive drugs for most people.


"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

yeah superman! (2.33 / 3) (#152)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 07:31:13 PM EST

you know, there are also guys who can speed down the highway at 150 miles an hour and never hit anyone

so the existence of those guys should mean that speed limits should be repealed?

no

and the VAST MAJORITY of users of coocaine, meth, heroin become FUCKING ZOMBIES

so fuck off, you lose


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

[ Parent ]

no, winners use drugs (2.50 / 2) (#167)
by endymion on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:08:51 PM EST

actually, I know about 10 people personally that use such "hard drugs" in various degrees, all of which are quite responsible with their use.

I only know one, personally, that is a fuckup with them. He was a fuckup with alcohol first, though, so it was not a surprise.

Maybe you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?! What a surprise...

There's more to life than propoganda. Just because you choose not to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you and your friends are too weak-willed to handle things, then maybe you should educate yourself some more. Come over to my place sometime... we'll be happy to teach you.

And you still didn't answer my question, which I now believe you are deliberatly avoiding:

"How will it benefit society to pull me from my hard working job, and put me in jail?"

I rather want an answer for that one...
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

uberman looks down on us mere mortals as weak (1.66 / 3) (#168)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:08:52 PM EST

look man, you don't want to abide by the laws of us mere weak losers anyway, so why debate the laws of the insipid? it's obvious they don't apply to you ;-P

what do you gain? we're losers, just leave it at that, right? you've already established your vastly superior biochemistry and willpower, are you trying to educate us in the ways of supermen? can you teach apes the ways of algebra?

and why even worry about little weakling deluded propagandized me? why do you feel a need to debate me? you can ignore me safely: when i say most people who use heroin become addicted zombies, surely that's just propaganda, right? your colony of supermen proves that!

surely you can use your super powers to escape us weakling's jails too, right?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you still didn't answer my question, which I now believe you are deliberatly avoiding:

"How will it benefit society to pull me from my hard working job, and put me in jail?"

i'm not avoiding it, it's just that little weak me shudders at your vastly superrior intellect, i am prostate before such a superior to me

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

how will it benefit society?

BY KEEPING AYOUR POISON AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE WE LOVE

how's that you deluded asswipe?

the truth:

if the government made heroin 100% legal, morons like you would be the first to complain that it was a plot by the government to rob people of their liberty

right now, you take the contrarian argument without reason, and you would do the same in the alternate reality of 100% legal heroin. that is all that you are about. you're not about the truth of the matter.

the difference is, in that alternate reality where herion were legal, if you said it was a means to control people, to hurt personal liberty, you would actually be right

truth: the REASONABLE observation about heroin and other hard drugs is that they are the LARGEST robber of personal liberty in the history of mankind

i oppose heroin and cocaine and meth

IN THE NAME OF personal liberty

so what do you have to say to me? where is your platform response to someone like me? how do you address someone like me asshole?

the truth is on my side

the war against drugs will always rage, and here's why:

  1. they are simply the wages of civilization. pedophiles will always be born anew, we will never win the "war against pedophilia." so does that mean we stop waging war against pedophiles? no, it's simply the wages of civilizaiton. and so the war on drugs will wage, FOREVER. the war on terrorism will wage, FOREVER. people turn to violence against innocents for political reasons. so terrorism will be with us, forever. do you understand? we are talking about the simple unaviodable wages of civilization. you lose.
  2. you win when you can get people to stop empathizing, sympathizing. hard drug use is zombification. people don't want to see their brothers, fathers, sons, neighbors, friends, etc. turn into zombies. when you get people to stop caring about other people, you win. meanwhile, you try to make hard addictive health destroying drugs legal, and you run into parents, sisters, children, friends, neighbors. they outnumber you. these people take a STAND. and when you atually care about someone, there are hard lines in the sand, across which, you do not want to see people go, because YOU LOVE THEM. turning into a zombie is one of them. you lose.
  3. what always blows my mind is how fucks like you say what you say in the name of personal liberty. when hard drugs are THE LARGEST DESTROYERS OF PERSONAL LIBERTY EVER. craven slave to a chemical... supplied by who exactly? here's a funny and 100% true observation which absolutely blows you out of the water: if drugs were legal, fucks like you would be the FIRST to whine that heroin was legalized by the government to control people and turn them into zombies! that observation is so dead on about the blindness people have about hard drugs and legalizing them in the name of personal liberty. IF YOU ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT PERSONAL LIBERTY AND HAD A FUCKING BRAIN AND THOUGHT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN POV, YOU WOULD BE FIGHTING THE LOUDEST FOR MAKING HARD DRUGS ILLEGAL. so you lose, you haven't even thought out the consequences of your own concerns.
fact: every single observation you make about the negative consequences of the war on drugs is 100% true.

also fact: those negative consequences don't rise above the positive effects of making hard drugs illegal, AND don't rise above the much greater negative consequences of making them legal.

in short, you lose, you lose, you lose.

teenagers and young adults think they are invincible, that they live forever, that nothing can hurt them. they resent laws agains their personal liberty into regions of human behavior thy feel perfectly confident they can master. age and wisdom knows the truth: no willpower beats biochemical fact. so teenage losers will be trying hard drugs forever, and if they fucking live, will be spending the rest of their lives wishing they didn't. there is nothing in hard drugs except slavery to a chemical.

the largest destroyer of personal liberty on this planet. and morons rush head long into that, and reap the profits of their teenaged idiocy: death and dependency. you can't stop teenagers from being idiots. and so, forever, a regular crop of headstrong young adults will rush into that void. and what can we do about that? nothing but shake our heads. fucking morons and losers.

so sorry uberman, if i am to hopelessly propgandized for you, but i think when i say that an ENDORPHIN, the FUCKING BIOCHEMICAL LANGUAGE OF PLEASUR EIN THE BRAIN is too addictive to legalize in society

IN THE NAME OF PERSONAL LIBERTY

asswipe


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

[ Parent ]

re: repetition (2.00 / 2) (#181)
by endymion on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 01:20:55 AM EST

[quote]
blah blah blah blah personal attack blah blah blah laugh in all caps blah blah blah blah blah blah assumption blah blah blah blah more personal attacks blah blah blah blah blah blah copy and paste of rants I made elsewhere blah blah blah more personal attacks and assumptions blah blah blah.
[/quote]

You know... I never offered you any drugs. You are going to have to get those on your own. I offered you /education/. Why do you think I'd give things to others? I'm not a freaking dealer. In fact, I'd say most people would be better off not using the things I use. They will have to come to that conclusion on their own, like I did.

Unfortunetly, with the black market like it is, the people you love are much more likely to be exposed to a shady pusher. I'd much prefer if I could just talk to a doctor and get thing things I use - it'd be a much safer interface, that would protect others from exposure.

If you want to leave things where any highschool student can get heroin, then ok... it's certainly easy to get things now.

...and you call me a destroyer of personal liberty. Yet you are the one who wants to put people in jail. Exactly who's personal liberty have I destroyed? Mine? I seem to be having a pretty good time here doing my research...

You seem to have a lot of pent-up anger on this subject. What, did a junky scare you straight or something?

Oh, and by the way - what do endorphins have to do with this? Most things can give you an endorphin release. Are you trying to jail marathon-runners and hot-chili-eaters now too? I guess if you take me up on that offer to come over, I'll have to keep my chili hidden...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

you don't really know much (1.50 / 2) (#185)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 01:45:01 AM EST

about human behavior do you?

you paint a picture of hard drug use in your alternate realty of decrim/legalization that really doesn't jive with what would really happen

in other words, you are very aware of the negatives of the reality of hard drug use prohibition, and i agre with all of them

but you seem intellectually incapable of compare and contrast... compare and contrast? you know, a skill a lot of us learn in kindergarten?

weigh the pluses and minuses einstein, and get back to us

small clue: the negatives of decrim/legalization of hard drug use would be greater than the negatives we have now

legalize marijuana, wage war on cocaine/ heroin/ meth harder, that's the way to go

in the name of increased personal liberty

that you see the limits on personal liberty in our current social environment, and are conveniently blind, stupid or naive about the effects of drugs like cocaine/ meth/ heroin on personal liberty is alternately hilarious and frightening that morons like you continue to talk

are you royally propagandized or just royally fucking stupid?

i agree with EVERY SINGLE NEGATIVE EFFECT OF CRIMINALIZATION YOU CAN PULL OUT OF YOUR ASS

and it's still better than the alternative

welcome to reality: no solution exists where no one gets hurt, and because you willfully ignore the negatives of decrim/legalization only means your a fucking moron who doesn't bring anything to the debate

the INTELLIGENT CHOICE THAT HURTS LESS PEOPLE IS CONTINUED CRMININALIZATION OF HARD DRUGS

truth for you, retard


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

[ Parent ]

you're right (2.66 / 3) (#211)
by endymion on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 02:17:22 PM EST

No solution exists where nobody will get hurt. If it did, we'd be in heaven or something.

So lets consider this:

We have two options we can try. Prohibition/Envorcement/etc, and Regulated Legalization (getting things from a pharmacist).

Lets then look at what would happen.

Currently (with the Prohibition method), there people (mostly young adults) who want drugs can get them, and they are pushed at children. Many people end up using, and many people end up in jail.

With Regulation, the (mostly young adults) mostly can get what they want legaly, reducing the jail aspect. Children have a much harder time to get thing, as pharmacists don't sell to them. They can get things on the black market still in this situation, but that market is greatly reduced, as most people just go to the pharmacy for their supply. So a similar ammount of people use, and we end up with less people in jail.

Which one here hurts less people?

In either case, people that really want the drugs can get them. This is empiricly shown to be true - evidence the last 50 years.

The current situation exposes children and others to dealers. Legalization and Regulation would not. That's kindof the point.

So how is it better for society to continue prohibion? It hurts more people, not even counting the collatoral cost of the drug war itself (jail/cops/etc).

So really, what's the benefit of the drug war? Less people use? No. Less exposure to children? No. So what is it that you are gaining? I mean, maybe I'm missing something here - enlighten me.

...

on a side note, you rail on meth and heorin a lot. You must not like you we give many people morphine all the time (basicly the same as heroin), and we give methamphetamine to kids, along with all kinds of other amphetamin-based drugs. Do you even know the full effects of these drugs? Have you tried them?

   
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

ever hear of oxycontin? (1.00 / 4) (#248)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:09:32 PM EST

you really are fucking stupid are you?

how many times do i have to say the fucking obvious before it sinks in?

exposure to a HIGHLY ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE IS BAD

PERIOD

YOU DON'T TOLERATE IT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

do you REALLY FUCKING UNDERSTAND HOW ADDICTION WORKS?

you have this retarded pretty picture of decrim/ legalization

and you do not in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM ADMIT TO THE FACT THAT EXPOSURE TO THE MORPHINE DERIVATIVES MAKES PEOPLE SLAVES

i was an aids educator in the lower east side of manhattan in the early 1990s, before the retrovirals made aids livable, i've seen what heroin does to people, i KNOW FIRSTHAND what that demon does to people

you LOCK IT UP

and the existance OF MORONS WHO STILL SEEK IT OUT DOESN"T CHANGE THAT

you are saving them from their own stupidity!

oxycontin asshole!

oxycontin in rural usa

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT TEACH YOU ABOUT THE GLOWING EXAMPLE YOU LIST ABOVE

it's from a pharmacist right?

COME ON ASSHOLE!!!!!!!

TELL ME ABOUT OXYCONTIN!!!!

EXPLAIN THAT IN YOUR PICTURE PERFECT WORLD WHERE HEROIN APPARENTLY ISN'T EVIL ADDICTION

A
D
D
I
C
T
I
O
N

what the FUCK doe shtat word mean to you in your picture perfect propagandized unvierse, huh you stupid twat?

it turns people into ZOMBIES

all they want is the DRUG

do you FUCKING understand the FUCKING concept of addiction you FUCKING propagandized moron!

man i wish i could stick a boot through your face, it is people like you whose actions and tolerance of truly vile evil substances leads to personal destruction in the dozens

you are POISON to everyone you meet

heroin is A FUCKING HIGHLY ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE

do you FUCKING UNDERSTAND THE FUCKING CONCEPT OF ADDICTION YOU FUCKING BRAINDEAD PROPAGANDIZED FUCK

god damn you fucking moron!

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

[ Parent ]

methods of debate (3.00 / 2) (#290)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:35:11 AM EST

You know, it really doesn't reflect well on your ability to debate when you just post in long lines of capital letters, and spend a large percentage of your posts calling people names.

You seem to get really stressed about this. Maybe you need to look at yourself here?

If opioids always make people slaves, who are destined to fuckup, why havn't I met them?

Maybe because, like is typical, when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME?

Yes, I know what addiction is. Probably much better than you do. I also know what dependency is, and the differences between them. Things move from dependency to addiction when they impact you life in a negative way, at least according to the DSM definition.

If addiction is always bad, then how do you explain this scene. I'm really curious to your response:

My mother needs to take thyroid, due to hypothyroidism. When she when on it, her body immedialy shut off production of the thyroid hormone, and permently up-regulated its need for it. The net result of this is that she is now dependant on thyroid suppliments for the rest of her life. If she stops, she experiences horrible, sometimes life-threatening withdrawl symptoms.

This method is exactly the same as how opioids cause dependency and withdrawl. When you eat opioids (any of them, heroin, morphine, codeine, it doesn't matter), you body slows down production of the endorphin it is making, and up-regulates the need for it by producing more opioid receptors (mainly mu-opioid, in the case of morphine).

So what's the difference here? Both thyroid and endorphin are hormones. Both have analogs that can stimulate the same receptors, in the form of commonly avaliable drugs. Both cause dependency.

So is my mom "addicted" to synthetic thyroid suppliments? Is this "bad", because you say "all addiction is bad"? Should we throw her in jail for being "addicted"?

Obviously not.

The logic problem here is that if you say yes to this, you have no heart, and just want to torture people with health problems. If you say no, and persist in your view with opioids, you are a hypocrit.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

are you trying to make yourself to be a fool? (none / 1) (#335)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:42:04 PM EST

i feel like i am taking the bait for some sort of trap, but it's so fucking obvious here goes:

you're just rephrasing your "the body's need for water is oppression" joke above which i thought was royal stupidity, but you seem serious about it!

your mom's need for her medicine, and the body's need for water, is different from heroin in this respect:

a human being is complete without heroin addiction

a human being is incomplete without thyroid/ water

do you understand?

do you really???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you removed water, a human being would die

if you lower thyroid, your metabolism suffers. therefore, it is not truly artificial for modern medicine to reintroduce thyroid: it is taking her body back to a normal thyroid level. how her body responds to the externally introduced thyroid is a secondary effect tha tis not instructive as to the primary situation we are tlakin gbaout... right? (are you ok?)

meanwhile, if you NEVER INTRODUCED HEROIN TO SOMEONE, THEY WOULD LIVE A COMPLETE LIFE

and if you gave someone heroin, YOU WOULD CREATE AN ARTIFICAL DEPENDENCY

i mean these words are so incredibly obvious

are you ok?


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

[ Parent ]

cool! (3.00 / 2) (#354)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:42:54 PM EST

so you volunteer to take high doses of Nalexone/Naltrexon, yes? As an experiment?

You do, in your infinite wisdom of the subject, know what they are, yes?

I'll assume not.

They binds to the endorphin receptors without stimulating them, effectivly blocking their action.

They are used to cure people of overdoses, and force people to go cold turkey from opioids. You opioids do nothing with nalexone in your system, as the receptors don't work.

Now, if you really don't need the endorphin system, and therefor opioids, this should do absolutly nothing to you, if you're not using, right? It would just keeping you from getting high off them.

So you'll volunteer to take this? It's perfectly safe, right?

Actually, I won't wish that on even you. The drug has horrible side effects, because the endorphin system affects so many systems in your body.

Side effects include:
 - anxiety
 - nervousness
 - confusion
 - hallucinations
 - vomiting
 - dirrhea
 - muscle, joint, and bone pain
 - skin rash
 ...and others

You have to understand that endorphin is a hormone, just like thyroid and others. Every single hormone has a documentated condition where the body makes too little or too much. We treat them with suppliments.

Why would the endorphin system, in the face of all logic, work differently? Explain that one, please!

Is it even, in your mind, ever a possibility that someone's body will produce too little endorphin to function properly, and we should treat them with suppliments?

And this doesn't even touch on the fact that I should have the freedom (in this so called "free country") to choose this dependency if I want it.
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

listen very carefully (1.33 / 3) (#374)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:40:48 AM EST

when (not if) your willpower is proven to be no match against the proven obvious addictive effects of heroin, and you become a nonfunctioning member of society, slave to a chemical, you implicitly (not explicitly, your blindness is obvious about that) expect me to pay for your rehabilitation (or attempt at rehab), relapses included

you are asking me to pay for your "freedom" (ie, slavery to a drug... whatever kind of freedom that is)

your freedom to choose slavery and oppression to biochemical pathways is not my burden

how does it work in your mind that you expect me to support you?

i know that you don't understand that that is what you are asking of me, but whatever, you're a fucking fool

you're arrogant, your hubris is showing

you don't live in a vacuum you stupid fuck

when society is faced with legions of the likes you, who don't understand their bonds to society, and turn themselves into criminals and basketcases in their need for their drug, then society will do what society must:

prevent the creation of more of the likes of you, by making hard, EXTREMELY ADDICTIVE drugs like heroin illegal

welcome to reality son


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

[ Parent ]

totally ignoring my words (3.00 / 2) (#381)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:10:53 AM EST

wow... you gave your same rant as always, with the same assumptions and miss-conceptions.

...and totally ignored everything I said. To restate: the post asked you specific questions as to your willingness to volunteer for Nalexone or similar dugs. Do you have a response for that, or are you going to take the strategy that ignoring things you don't want to hear makes them go away? Or somehow "win"?

Can you explain the break in logic as to why, as you state, endorphins follow other rules than normal hormones, and will always lead to problems?

We've all given reasons for our position. Now backup yours with this wonderful biochemistry degree you claim to have.

Can you give even ONE shread of evidence for your posisiton besides yelling vague platitudes?

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

dude, you're hilarious ;-) (none / 1) (#393)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:51:50 AM EST

so i follow you down all of your weird questions, then you have 3 more, and we're in this thread for 20 years ;-P

how about this:

on the question of drugs and legality, you take the lessons of prohibition and weigh them against the lessons of addiction

what happens is that for less addictive substances- alcohol, marijuana, caffeine: prohibition's lessons prevail

and more addictive substances- cocaine, meth, heroin: addiction's lessons prevail

that's what i'm saying, that's sound reasoning, i stand by it and it's good solid reasoning

"oh my god! you're avoiding the question! you're admitting i'm right!"

no dude, it's just that your questions are completely pointless and tangential to the important issue i care about making, ok? ;-P

say what you want, you haven't touched the large points i'm making

come on dude, throw some more pebbles at me

they don't move the rock of gibraltar ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

personal attacks (2.33 / 3) (#212)
by endymion on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 02:20:36 PM EST

you know, you seem to spend most of your posts in a long running personal attack against those who debate you, and disagree with your thesis. This isn't very constructive, and makes me decide you are just trolling.

So if you are, here, have a Troll-Treat. The package says they're made with 100%-real-retorts! In real flame-war flavor!

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

how can i refrain from personal attacks (none / 1) (#247)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:02:07 PM EST

when i have no respect for you whatsoever?

you're a propagandized loser, with no knowledge of biochemistry, just a lot of propoganda

and yet you keep talking

how or why am i supposed ot respect you when you're so fucking stupid about the issues you talk about?


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

[ Parent ]

feeding the trolls (none / 0) (#294)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:50:20 AM EST

no knowledge of biochemistry?

like what my degree is in?

like the genome lab I work at?

you know me so well!

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

i have a BS in biochem (none / 1) (#334)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:33:10 PM EST

i've worked in those labs

and i worked as an aids educator on the lower east side of manhattan in the early 1990s before retrovirals made aids somewhat liveable... (the 10003 zip had the highest aids rate in the nation then) i'v eseen what heroin use does to people with my own eyes

so does this path of battling credentials supposed to mean anything to me moron?

if anything, it makes my disgust and lack of respect for you even larger

to me, you're now even more of a conceited fool, you know nothing about reality

because if you really have that education, and yet you are still so willfully blind to the simple undeniable facts of the biochemistry of addiction, then you are beyond belief to me in your conceit, you have to be the most willfully conceited asshole i have perhaps met in my life

so i'm glad for your credentials: that only makes you more of a fool and an asshole than what i already think of you

to me you now border on evil with your willfull disregard of simple facts about the biochemistry of addiction


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

[ Parent ]

If by BS you mean Bull Shit (none / 1) (#339)
by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:51:32 PM EST

Really, is it impossible for you to see that you might be wrong?
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
yes, it is impossible (none / 1) (#345)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:07:59 PM EST

for me to be wrong about the biochemistry of addiction of hard drugs when i am dealing with morons who make light of it

describe to me what the biochemistry of addiction is all about in your own words

describe to me how it is so inconsequential and weak! :-P

man you morons are fucking hilarious! ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure (none / 0) (#347)
by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:15:28 PM EST

that anyone is saying it is inconsequencial.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
good! common sense! (none / 1) (#371)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:31:07 AM EST

now we can talk about why we should criminalize heroin cocaine and meth even stronger and fight it harder then

good for you, finally some common sense


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

[ Parent ]

Just because it isn't inconsequential... (none / 1) (#380)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:08:45 AM EST

Doesn't mean it should be illegal. If people want to use drugs, they can deal with the consequences. The negative consequences to society are not nearly as severe as the negative consequences of prohibition.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
completely true (none / 1) (#390)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:44:43 AM EST

if addiction didn't exist

so what you do is you take the lessons of prohibition and weigh them against the lessons of addiction

what happens is that for less addictive substances: alcohol, marijuana, caffeine: prohibitions lessons previal

and more addictive substances: cocaine, meth, heroin: addiciton's lessons prevail

understand?

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

[ Parent ]

That would be fine if you had any evidence... (none / 1) (#411)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:12:50 AM EST

to support that assertion. But in reality, prohibition causes crime (expensive drugs, also makes people more likely to break other laws once they've started breaking the drug laws, creates black market, etc), additional harm to addicts (dirty needles, no regulation of purity), and wastes money. I find it hilarious that you think it would cost society more for rehab. We waste so much money on the war on drugs, that if you really want to save money, you should be all for legalization. Now where's your evidence?
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
the truth (none / 1) (#442)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:50:04 AM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

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

[ Parent ]
What about the opium wars? (none / 1) (#450)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:56:29 AM EST

I don't see the US government invading any countries to maintain the opium supply. Oil maybe, but not opium.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
the opium wars (none / 1) (#464)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:10:27 AM EST

heroin used as a means of warfare: addicting the populace of china, by the european colonial powers to further their control of trade

what does that tell you?


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

[ Parent ]

That in the days of empire..... (none / 1) (#508)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:38:49 AM EST

the brits were imperialist fuckheads? We were, we marched over half the world and killed anyone that got in the way, sometime purely for the amusement.

These days we hope we have slightly better ethics than to use drugs for control or go to war over trade.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
which, of course, it the problem (none / 0) (#353)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:28:20 PM EST

I don't really care about your education. It's painfully obvious (as others have noticed, too) that  you are missing some rather key features of this.

I don't care where you worked, and don't care where you went to school, when you obviously can't do such things as basic research.

Really, if addiction is sooooo bad like you make it out to be, I really hope you never have to go in for surgery, or break your leg, or something. The doctors are going to inject you with the evil morphine, and you'll be hooked for life! Maybe you could sue them for stealing your freedom, because they got you hooked!

[sarcasm off]

Or maybe the fact that millions of people use opioids without problem, and only a small fraction of them end up with it impacting their life in a bad way?

But that is a fact, that requires the ability we call "logic" and "reasoning" to understand, which you seem to lack.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

explain to me (none / 1) (#370)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:29:28 AM EST

the experience of oxycontin in rural america

you know, that harmless opiate that you can only get with a prescription when you need pain relief after surgery for example

come on asshole, explain to me oxycontin ;-)

come on, you paint me a very pretty picture about opiates and their control

you will excuse me if i bring up, gee, i dunno... REALITY

that renders your pretty picture to be nothing but fantasy?

and you don't care about my credentials?

well i don't either!

THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BRING UP YOURS ASSHOLE

no one was talking about credentials until you spit them out unprompted: look in the thread asshole

so i responded with my own, and you say: "I don't really care about your education. It's painfully obvious (as others have noticed, too) that  you are missing some rather key features of this.
I don't care where you worked, and don't care where you went to school, when you obviously can't do such things as basic research."

hilarious

pathetic

YOU'RE THE FUCKING MORON WHO DOESN'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MIX ADDICTION WITH HUMAN NATURE UNIMPEDED IN SOCIETY

you're the fucking moron who are ehem "missing some rather key features"

like hmmm... let me think hard here...

what ADDICTION DOES TO PEOPLE

sorry if i'm so wacky to you, sorry if i come out of nowhere

i'm talking about heroin and addiction

do you fucking understand why society should fight it?

no, you don't

you really truly don't

you really, really are one deluded conceited hubristic fucking moron, really

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

[ Parent ]

that's funny (none / 0) (#375)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:44:31 AM EST

"you really, really are one deluded conceited hubristic fucking moron, really"

Hahahaha!

That's rich coming from you.

Oxycontin? What about it?

It's the same as most other opioids. About as strong as morphine or heroin. (stronger by weight, but that's not that important or usefull)

What do you want to know about it?

Yes, some people are fuckups with it. I never said otherwise.

Most people that use it end up using it responsibly. Witness the large numbers of (legitimate) prescriptions for it. Witness those same people taking the prescriptions not falling into dependence and/or addiction.

Your point?

Oh, I forgot. You just like to listen to yourself yell, and to put down others because they disagree with you. Or maybe because you can't stand hearing logic that makes sense? It creates cognative dissonence in your mind?

Whatever... if you have legitimate rebuttles that don't involve shouting and name calling, and push for logic and reason, I'll respond. Otherwise, I'm done feeding the trolls for now.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

yes of course your done (none / 1) (#389)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:42:46 AM EST

because your depiction of oxycontin is complete bs

of course you won't respond now, i got you ;-)

the rural epidemic of oxycontin abuse is exactly the sort of example that completely ruins your arguments

got you asshole ;-)

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

[ Parent ]

you're so full of shit (none / 1) (#536)
by Polverone on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 08:15:43 PM EST

You say more-or-less "everyone who uses hard drugs will become a biochemical slave and ruin their life." To disprove this, it is sufficient to give an example of a single person who has used without becoming an addict or ruining their life.

I don't just have one example, I have millions of examples from the US government's own numbers:

3.7 million Americans have used heroin during their lifetime; only 119,000 used in the month prior to the survey.

34.9 million Americans have used cocaine during their lifetime, but only 2.3 million used in the month prior to the survey.

12.3 million Americans have used methamphetamine during their lifetime, but only 607,000 used in the month prior to the survey.

So what can we learn about these monstrous hard drugs that will surely make you a biochemical slave and ruin your life forever?

MORE THAN 90% OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE USED HARD DRUGS ARE NOT ADDICTS, BY THE US GOVERNMENT'S VERY OWN NUMBERS.

I HOPE THIS IS LOUD ENOUGH TO REACH YOU, YOU DENSE MOTHERFUCKER.


nailed you to the wall, howler monkey ;-)
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]
Selection bias (3.00 / 2) (#226)
by pyro9 on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 10:56:53 PM EST

and the VAST MAJORITY of users of coocaine, meth, heroin become FUCKING ZOMBIES

More correctly, the vast majority of people who are unable to successfully hide their use of coocaine, meth, and heroin become FUCKING ZOMBIES. You probably know several people who use hard drugs recreationally but successfully hide it from you.

The same would be true for alcohol if people had a real incentive to keep their consumption a secret.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
addiction (none / 1) (#246)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:00:08 PM EST

for alcohol is nowhere near as easy as meth, cocaine, heroin

really and for true dorothy

study your biochemistry, give up your propaganda, moron

stimulants are EXTREMELY ADDICTIVE

heroin, morhine derivatives, endorphins: the FUCKING LANGUAGE OF PEASURE IN THE FUCKING BRAIN

jesus you stupid ignorant morons!


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

[ Parent ]

You must be talking to someone else (none / 1) (#306)
by pyro9 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:16:14 PM EST

Where did you get the idea that I don't believe stimulants are addictive?

Where did you get the idea that I believe people SHOULD use them?

There is a HUGE difference between approving of something and grudgingly tolerating it and/or believing that criminal prosecution fails to address the issue.

You have fallen into the fallacy if the false dichotomy and in so doing, have foreclosed the posaability that you might realize a useful solution to the problem.

Until you can understand that it is entirely logical that a person may disapprove of chemical dependance AND believe that prohibition and criminal prosecution only makes the original problem worse.

A free society must prohibit restricting the freedom of others. A free society MUST leave people free to make poor choices as long as they don't infringe on the freedom of others in the process.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
you live an ivory tower (none / 1) (#333)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:26:33 PM EST

meanwhile, in the real world, some problems have a range of solutions where someone gets hurt no matter which path i choose

so i choose the path where the least get hurt

and then i have to deal with idealistic whiners like yourself, who insist that everything is wrong because someone is getting hurt

only because you don't realize that no one getting hurt is an impossible situation when it comes to the problem we are talking about

so you get back to us when you have solved the problem in such a way that no one gets hurt

until then, you stand corrected by me: you're a hopeless naive idealist, and you hold the world to an impossible standard

which makes you the fool, not me, because no matter how indignant you get, you only illustrate your own maladaptivity to reality in the end


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

[ Parent ]

You are taklking to someone else (none / 1) (#541)
by pyro9 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 07:54:53 AM EST

Unless you can point to anywhere I said anything about someone being hurt (rather than the much more restricted statement about infringed freedom), I must conclude you have conceeded the point in your mind (or more likely have brainwiped yourself so you can pretend your arguments are invulnerable) and are now spouting an inky cloud of gibberish in hopes of creating a distraction so you can make your escape.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Naw.... (none / 0) (#301)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:09:05 AM EST

Dunno about heroin, but I've know a lot of people use coke once in a while with no issue. Meth too.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
i knew a guy once (none / 1) (#331)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:22:27 PM EST

you tried arsenic, strychnine, and warfarin, then took a chaser of poison ivy

awesome!


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

[ Parent ]

Your point being? (none / 1) (#507)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:35:06 AM EST

I was just providing counter examples to your frequently repeated and, frankly, absolutely fucking wrong assertion that MOST people that try hard drugs turn into zombies. I will agree that most frequent and regular users do, but you're wrong about an entire class of user, the ones who do these things infrequently with no addiction. There's lots of them with the stimulant drugs. Heroin probably less so, I've never met a heroin user so I don't know.


--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Heroin (none / 1) (#511)
by DavidTC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:38:27 AM EST

People have taken heroin, or morphine, for decades. Morphine addiction used to be called 'the soldier's disease'.

Physical addiction to optiates is not that dangerous (Assuming you can keep up the supply.), and doesn't always lead to psychological addition.

Unlike, say, alcohol, where physical addition is almost always caused by psychological addition.

So a better analogy might be cigarettes. A physical addition, leading to some slight psychological addiction, that's a bitch to get off of. (And, unlike tobacco, you can easily die from withdrawal.).

The only difference is that with opiates, you can do the same trick as with alcohol, where it becomes your entire universe, and you live for the next drink.

And just like alcohol, that not caused by the addition, it's usually the other way around. People take it to escape from the world, and keep taking it, and become dependant, but the dependancy is not the problem.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Wrong (none / 1) (#305)
by azurensis on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:08:59 PM EST

>and the VAST MAJORITY of users of coocaine, meth, heroin become FUCKING ZOMBIES

Completely baseless assertion. I know quite a few people who have done (and some still do) cocaine and meth on occasion, and only one of them has ever had 'a problem'. He also happens to be the same guy who can't handle his alcohol. Go figure. From personal experience (and the government's own statistics on the matter), alcohol is roughly equivalent to cocaine and meth in terms of addictiveness and physical harm.

I can't speak to heroin in general, as I've only known one person who's ever tried it, but he certainly didn't get addicted.

[ Parent ]

stimulants are more addictive thasn alcohol (none / 1) (#324)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:08:20 PM EST

that's cocaine and meth if you didn't know ;-P

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

so i should just use your reasoning when the cop pulls me over?

likewise, i can also go rock climbing with just my barehands, and never fall

is that what drug use is like? surely if i fell i wouldn't hit anybody: only i suffer, right?

but what you don't seem to understand is that hard drug use is not rock climbing, where if you fall no one gets hurt, it is more akin to driving down the highway at high speeds, where your accident hurts other people

THEREFORE SOCIETY HAS EVERY RIGHT TO FIGHT THE LIKES OF YOU

you can rob yourself of freewill if you want, but you can't ask us to pick to the pieces when you are completely zombified

what you aren't admitting to, out of idiocy or conceit, is that you are asking us to pick up the pieces when you fall (not if you fall)

you live in society, whether you admit to it or not, and when you fall, it will hurt those around you, in ways you will never admit to, i know

everything is blue skies and roses with the demons you are playing with, right?

yup, you keep up that tune, let me know how cheerful and wonderful it is to play with hard drugs

the song of the damned


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

[ Parent ]

you really can't see a difference? (3.00 / 2) (#355)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:44:41 PM EST

you really can't see a difference between someone who speeds and therefor puts others on the road at risk, and someone who uses drugs in the privacy of their own home, who only hurts themselves, if at all?

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]
i see the difference you can't (none / 1) (#369)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:20:27 AM EST

you don't live in a vacuum

what exactly do drug users whose addiciton overwhelms their ability to suport themselves turn to?

oh i'm sorry: you live up on a mountain, right?

you suffer from conceit: you don't understand the relationship between you and society

if you COULD use drugs in a vacuum i would agree with you 100%

but the simple truth is YOU DON'T

that you don't see that is part of your fucking problem about your inability to understand the role of addiction and why society has every right to defend itself form fools like you and what you do to society when, not if, you fall down the rabbit hole

it is only your arrogance and hubris that makes you think you won't

it's your will power versus biochemical pathways, and you want me to trust you at your word that your willpower is stronger than biochemistry

so when (not if) you fall apart and i have to pay for your rehabilitation (however successful that will be) i should just shut up and roll over

sorry asshole, i have better idea: how about you NEVER FUCKING USE HEROIN ASSWIPE

your arrogance and sense of priviledge is showing now: you have no reason to expect society to pick up the pieces when you fall apart

and you come to me saying you never will

right

you are the very definition of a fool

you don't have the right to impose the costs on society you are imposing

that you don't see those costs means nothing but you're ignorance and arrogance

and society has every right to fight you


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

[ Parent ]

drug use affecting others (none / 1) (#376)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:53:02 AM EST

Please. I ask you. Name a single way my drug use affects you. Or anybody else.

(this 'argument' on k5 not counting)

Some day you may realise that the vocal minority can spoil things for the rest of us.

Most users don't make an ass out of themselves, so you don't hear about it. It's only when someone like me has the guts to risk arrest by people like you, and we speak our mind on what we believe and know to be true.

I've never defended the fuckup on the street who is a drain on society. That's just in your head. If they break other laws, like theft, arrest them for that. Drugs are not an excuse to act like an asshole. (alcohol included)

You still live in the fictional world where drug use must equal abuse.

I'd love to meet you in real life. It'd be quite a shock to you to see the type of people you want to throw in jail. We are all around you. It's probably some of the people you interact with all the time. You just never see it, because we can handle our drugs responsibly!

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

the way your drug use affects me (none / 1) (#387)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:40:57 AM EST

if i speed down the road at 150 mph it effects no one except me

until i crash, taking out an innocent couple in the car next to me

your heroin use effects no one except you

until you crash, then you need me to TRY to rehab you

is it asseriotn you are superman? that the biochemical rules of heroin addiciton applies to all us mere mortals except you?


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

[ Parent ]

oh, I make no pretense to the contrary (none / 1) (#395)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:54:44 AM EST

of course the biochemical tendencies of dependance affect me. I'm intimatly familiar with them.

Some of us learned to use our knowledge to plan and monitor what we do. It's not that hard, with proper education.

Why do you think it negativly impacts my life? Or that it will have to? Again, what's your evidence for this hypothesis?

Lots of things are a dangerous.

If you want to talk about what society has to support, lets try other things: eating fastfood isn't healthy, and causes horrible (and very expensive) health problems. Watching TV to excess makes people lazy fuckups that can't hold down a job. Hell, smoking causes far more expense to society through raised insurrence rates and such than any junky.

Your priorities are really miss-placed, if "cost to society" is the root cause you are trying to fight.

I don't see you out fighting to have greasy fast food and such baned on pain of jailtime...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

teehee ;-) (none / 1) (#401)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:59:51 AM EST

eating fast food is dangerous to yourself and the health effects will have to be supported by society

but on a scale of 1-10 it's a 2

taking heroin is a 9

scale

understand the concept?

;-)

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

[ Parent ]

of course I understand scale (none / 1) (#402)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:01:22 AM EST

what is your evidence for saying it's a danger of strenght "9"?

saying it repeatedly does not make it so.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

you understand scale? (none / 1) (#404)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:04:05 AM EST

ok, let's do 1000 research projects

we find that the real value is 8.6675333 on a scale from playing on a jungle gym and driving down the interstate at 300 mph

LOL ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

what? (none / 1) (#405)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:07:14 AM EST

wow... a total non-sequiter. such the suprise.

I will restate again: EVIDENCE!

Do you have any evidence at all for these allegations you make? Just pulling numbers out of your ass doesn't make them true.

A paper comparing risks?

A study some university did?

Anything?

Buler?

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

it's "buehler" (none / 1) (#439)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:44:50 AM EST

my point was simply that whatever the truth is, it's a lot in my depiction than in your depiction

the burden of proof is on you, not me

you are the one downplaying heroins obvious and long proven strong addictive effects

i am the one pointing at them

what does something like this tell you about heroin?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

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

[ Parent ]

heroin is addictive, and nobody is arguing it isnt (none / 0) (#445)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:53:00 AM EST

I dont see why the burden is on us btw. We at least give evidence. The Opium Wars show the heroin can be addictive (although, interestingly, not that I want to make a big deal out of it, the opium wars were the result of china's prohibition of opium). What we are trying to tell you is, there can be things that are worse than opiates, and one of those things is prohibition, for reasons I have outlined in other posts. You have yet to counter any of those reasons.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
effective counter (none / 1) (#452)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:57:55 AM EST

relieving prohibition relieves the negative effects of prohibition

and increases the negative effects of addiciton to a greater degree

this is only true for highly addictive substances


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

[ Parent ]

It does but the the end result is.. (none / 1) (#455)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:01:07 AM EST

that the negative effects of addiction, even with the harder drugs, are less severe than the negative effects of prohibition. Even based purely on monetary cost, the war on drugs costs more than rehab.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
true (none / 1) (#460)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:05:32 AM EST

but you don't see that the more permissive environment increases the number of addicts such that the costs of rehab becomes more expensive than the war on drugs

you truly don't understand how viral easy access to something like heroin would be do you?

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

[ Parent ]

I think it would be close (none / 1) (#465)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:11:24 AM EST

It wouldn't be drastically cheaper, and I'm willing to admit I may have worded that a bit to strongly (unlike some people). I think in any event it wouldn't be much more expensive, and when you take into acount the non-monetary issues, and perhaps the money that would be saved by the reduced crime, recuded HIV infection, etc, legalization is the better option.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
wrong (none / 1) (#480)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:26:39 AM EST

because the addiction rates would go through the roof

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

[ Parent ]
it's viral now? (none / 1) (#474)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:21:41 AM EST

So the only thing keeping you from using heroin is that it's illegal?

Or maybe you have other reasons for not using?

Maybe you wouldn't use heroin regardless of it's legal status?

If you think that way, why not others?

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

if you force injected me with heroin (none / 1) (#479)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:25:56 AM EST

i would become addicted

if it was freely avaibale, i would then seek it out

this would consume me and my life

so you prevent people form accessing it

in the name of free will and fredom from oppression


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

[ Parent ]

fear of injury (none / 0) (#486)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:35:18 AM EST

do you live in constant fear of injury?

fear that you would ever have to go into a hospital?

Because if you did, they'd probably inject you with a big syninge of morphine.

Heroin is diacytlemorphine (which you should know as a biochemist), The acytle groups help it cross the blood-brain barrier a bit faster, but once it crosses, it's metabolised straight to morphine.

Heroin itself is not physiologicly active. It has to be converted to morphine first.

So you would be just as addicted from the morphine.

So where are all the morphine/heroin addicts from the hospitals?

Speaking of trying heroin... you do know that a vast majority of people that try heroin for the first time spend the eaving sick from it, throwing up most of the time? And that they never try it again because of it?

The myth that you can become addicted in one dose has been disproven many times. It takes weeks to months of constant usage.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

you're such a deluded moron (none / 1) (#496)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:51:54 AM EST

addicts regularly turn up in emergency rooms feigning all sorts of bullshit to get their fix, even injuring themselves in order to get that precious hit

oh, and i like your bs about how hard it is to get addicted to heroin

yeah, truly, it's just like eating pizza

jesus christ what a deluded propagandized fuck

what the fuck is your problem exactly?

opiates are just about the most highly addictive class of substances known to man

they need to be strictly controlled for the sake of freedom from oppression

period, end of story

you're a complete crackpot

i need not argue with you

just about every society in existence today and the past has come to the same conclusion about heroin

you're view can never prevail

simply because you are in such denial about the truth of heorin addiction

profoundly, alternatingly hilariously and scarily, deluded about the simple basic obviosu truth of heroin and it's addictiveness


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

[ Parent ]

Its one thing to be against legalization (none / 1) (#498)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:58:50 AM EST

But all the scientific evidence shows that you can't get addicted to heroin from shooting up once. It really does take weeks, if not months.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
reading comprehension (none / 1) (#500)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:59:15 AM EST

answer this, fool: Are you or are you not affraid of injury, because you would get addicted to morphine.

Morphine, after all, being the strongest and most addictive opiate known.

Also, do you debate that morphine and heroin are basicly the same drug? That the only difference is their onset speed?

All your post has done so far is show you don't know how to read mine.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

This is factually incorrect (none / 0) (#492)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:41:57 AM EST

One injection of heroin is not enough to get you addicted. There is no evidence to support your assertion.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
if I force injected you with heroin (none / 0) (#547)
by procrasti on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 06:38:09 AM EST

for long enough

you would be become addicted

if it was strictly controlled, you would then seek it out, but you would have to get it from me

I would consume you and your life, because of the control I would have over you.

so you make it highly regulated but available (prescription)

then you would not be dependent on me

and, with help, you would regain your free will and freedom from oppression.

-------
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 ]

much better! (none / 1) (#469)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:16:27 AM EST

That was evidence!

Bringing up the Opium Wars is a point for your side!

You may learn how to do this yet...

So now we have two sides, each with evidence:

Your side->

Hypothesis: "Opiate use always leads to self destruction."
Evidence: "In the ninteenth century, opium was introduced into China with a destructive effect on their society. Many people ended up addicted. This created extreem tentions between China and the British Empire and their East India Company."

Would that be an accurate description/summary of the last post?

Allow me to state my side in similar formal fasion->

Hypothesis: "Opiate use does no necessarily lead to self destruction."
(this is the Anti-Hypothesis to your Hypothesis)
Evidence: "Millions of people use morphine every day, as given by doctors and hospitals across the country. Only a tiny minority of that population ends up with a dependency, let alone self destructive problems."

(side evidece: Opium is about 70% codeine, 30% morphine, if I remember correctly, hence the corrolation between the Opium Wars and Morphine in hospitals - they are talking about basicly the same substance)

We have an impass at the hypothesis level (the hypothesises are opposites of eachother), and one piece of evidence each. Both pieces of evidence are currently anecdotal, but both have good theoretical support.

So, I respond with two things. A rebutal of your evidence, and new evidence of my own. Please do the same!

Rebutal: "The opium wars involved a largly uneducated populace. With modern knowledge and management techniques, it is much less of a problem. Also, a known opressive regeime like China is not known to have the best wishes of its populace at heart, so the conflict with the East India Company may have been more to do with Economics than protecting people from opium. Finally, that the country of China survived the situation with ease, and remains a great power today is evidence that they didn't suffer greatly from the supposed problem, regardless of how many people ended up addicted."

New Evidence on My Side: "Modern science has yielded many techniques to help those that are addicted, allowing addiction to be a temporary setback, instead of a final desctruction of the soul. Tools such as Buprenorphine offer help to those addicted, as do modern theraputic technique such as rapid detox, and experimental ibogaine treatment. Therefor, even if it gets out of hand, it can still me managed if you pay carefull attention to it."

Please, rebut these points, with more evidence on your side! Or correct my hypothesis, if necessary. As a biochemist, you should be used to such procedures.

We can get a real debate out of this yet!

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

heroin use (none / 1) (#476)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:23:51 AM EST

isn't necessary moron

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

[ Parent ]
missing the point (none / 1) (#481)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:28:36 AM EST

many things aren't necessary... I think we should pull your internet access, as that's not necessary, and you obviously are addicted to flaming people with it.

or something...

you totally missed the point.

you have an opportunetly to debate here

use it... rebut my points. show me the error of my ways. I promise that if you produce any evidence here, I'll read it and carefully consider it.

You have to actually show something, though.

All you are up to so far is many copies of the same hypothesis, and one link to Wiki on the Opium Wars. We've provided stacks of points for our side. Try and keep up?

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

heroin use (none / 1) (#483)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:31:10 AM EST

isn't necessary

but unlike other things, the costs of heroin use on society is humongous

it's cheaper to just prevent it's use


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

[ Parent ]

no evidence (none / 1) (#489)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:39:55 AM EST

you've now made two posts in reply to my attempt at fair debate.

and you ignore it all.

all you are doing is making the same statements, and have no evidence for them.

so the only logical conclusion I can make is that you are full of shit and making these statements up. if it's so obvious, you should be able to come up with at least a couple simple pieces of evidence, yes?

maybe you can't come up with this evidence, because it doesn't exist?

you're trolling techinique is getting old...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

How about this? (none / 1) (#515)
by azurensis on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:14:15 AM EST

According to National Institute of Drug Abuse researchers, alcohol is both more intoxicating and has worse withdrawl than heroin, and nicotine is more likely to cause dependence.

Learn something before you speak next time, boy.

[ Parent ]
Proof by repeated assertion? (none / 1) (#513)
by azurensis on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:00:33 AM EST

>but what you don't seem to understand is that hard drug use is not rock climbing, where if you fall no one gets hurt, it is more akin to driving down the highway at high speeds, where your accident hurts other people

Or maybe proof by bad analogy?

Once again, you are just plain wrong. A person's drug use, regardless of the drug, is only harmful to someone else if the person doing the drug is an asshole with no regard for other people. Then again, these people are the same ones who are likely to cause havoc without drugs too.

>THEREFORE SOCIETY HAS EVERY RIGHT TO FIGHT THE LIKES OF YOU

Ooh, now it's proof by LOUD assertion. You get more goofy all the time.

Society has the right to punish people who actually harm others, or have a very good chance of doing so. Casual users of stimulants, opiates, or alcohol don't fall into this category by default, regardless of your baseless opinion.

>you can rob yourself of freewill if you want,

*hahaha* "Rob myself of free will". Spoken like a propagandized fool. Please do one ounce of real research on the subject before you  keep making yourself look like a clown.

>but you can't ask us to pick to the pieces when you are completely zombified

I wouldn't dream of asking for your help for some situation that will never happen in the first place. Nor would I help the idiots who are incapable of controlling themselves.

>what you aren't admitting to, out of idiocy or conceit, is that you are asking us to pick up the pieces when you fall (not if you fall)

Are all your views as cartoony as your views on drugs? You're like one of those public service announcements at the end of a GI Joe.


[ Parent ]

I was with you until.... (3.00 / 3) (#136)
by kcidx on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:53:12 PM EST

...you wrote the following.

with a sound understanding of biochemistry, you will understand that they have ROUGHLY the same inebriating/ incapacitating, addicting, and unhealthy effects.

What a total bunch of crap. Compare the LD50's of the two drugs and you will realize why I say that.

Alcohol addiction also leads to delerium tremens, and potential fatality from withdrawl, whereas marijunana has no physical withdrawl symptoms, so you can't really say their equally addicting.

You can smoke enough pot to get tired and fall asleep, you cannot smoke enough to actual black out while remaining concious as you can with alcohol. You also never have hangovers from pot, because it's not a deadly poison like alcohol is.

If you want to do your own experiment, just try both drugs. You will realize really quick that alcohol gets you FUCKED UP, and marijuana just kinda makes you chill out for a while...and maybe eat a burrito.


[ Parent ]

Hangovers (3.00 / 2) (#137)
by Trevasel on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 03:22:36 PM EST

You can be hung over from pot if you don't replenish your fluids and become dehydrated, you'll have a massive dehydration headache in the morning.
-- That which does not kill you only makes you stranger - Trevor Goodchild
[ Parent ]
That's not the poisonous effects of pot though (none / 0) (#221)
by Have A Nice Day on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 06:42:46 PM EST

Drink enough booze and you're boned in the morning regardless of fluid levels.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
if you are asserting (1.50 / 2) (#151)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 07:29:07 PM EST

that alcohol is a more dangerous drug than pot, than that supports my original observation of the hypocrisy of alcohol legal, marijuana not, so who gives a fuck what you are saying, you support me

i knew nitpickers like you would respond, but they are ROUGHLY the same, on a scale form caffeine to heroin, okay?

ROUGHLY

on a LARGER SCALE

do you fucking understand?

from the top of a mountain your little sister and your mother look the same, do you get it?


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

[ Parent ]

not really (2.33 / 3) (#189)
by army of phred on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 03:03:49 AM EST

Alchohol is roughly equal to heroin and cocaine.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
trying to be funny? (nt) (none / 0) (#190)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 03:24:46 AM EST



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

[ Parent ]
I'm talking about this (none / 1) (#200)
by army of phred on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 09:29:17 AM EST

the effect of alcohol on ones health, job, and life is comparable to the hard drugs, in addition to its addictive properties. Now thats just my opinion and I'm not going to argue with you because you are a verified asshole, nutcase, and unable to hold a normal conversation with any sort of thoughtfulness so in advance, fuck off.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
ok good, then i'm assured you won't respond ;-) (1.00 / 4) (#203)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 09:44:07 AM EST

so some truth for anyone else reading:

what he says is true for serious alcohol addicts

but it's hard to proceed to that level of dependency with alcohol

meanwhile, it is EASY to proceed to that level of depency with heroin

so you will have to excuse phred, he doesn't have enough intellectual capacity to juggle all of the variables involved with what is an easy determination for the rest of us

but he means well

LOL


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

[ Parent ]

in addition to my previous post (none / 1) (#201)
by army of phred on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 09:31:36 AM EST

you are unable to weigh options, unable to measure or provide reliable estimates of any sort of subjective cause and effect.

In other words you're a screaming dunce and I actually regret replying to one of your idiotic posts or getting in a thread anywhere near your psychiatrically damaged ass.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

i love you (2.00 / 3) (#204)
by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 09:50:51 AM EST

as you love me

i seemed to have been able to respond to your OTHER reply to my post just fine (snicker) and refuted you quite handily

you don't seem to properly realize that yes, both alcohol and heroin can destroy your life through addiction, but that it is EASY to become addicted to heroin while it is HARD to become addicted to alcohol

now what was it you said?

"you are unable to weigh options, unable to measure or provide reliable estimates of any sort of subjective cause and effect."

hmmm... i seemed to have just discovered an "option" you seemed to have overlooked, no?

now i know it's hard for an intellectual charity case such as yourself to grasp all of the concepts and variables involved in the subject matter you are trying to apply yourself to, and i know you mean nothing but your very best (snicker), but you might want to ponder the holes in what you are saying a little more next time, lest someone reveal you to be the moron you are as easily as i just did

toodles fruitcake

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

;-)


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

[ Parent ]

Just for fun (none / 0) (#259)
by benna on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 03:59:31 PM EST

I figure I'll nitpick about your assertion that it is easy to get addicted to heroin. I actually takes alot of heroin to get to the point of addiction. Thats not to say that alcohol isn't easier, just that I wouldn't charectorize heroin as easy. I don't really care though. I just want to see your response, seeing as how entertaining they are.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
ok (none / 1) (#278)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:23:45 AM EST

what's an endorphin?

what is it's function in the brain?

how is heroin chemically related to endorphin, ie, how does the effects of heroin work biochemically?

answer those questions, and the world is YOURS for the taking!

lol

;-P

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

[ Parent ]

uh (none / 0) (#282)
by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:51:03 AM EST

Comes from endo-morphine. Endorphines are chemicals produced by the body that bind to the opiod receptors. They function to lessen pain. Heroin has a structure sufficiently similar to endorphines to bind to opiod receptors. Is the world mine now?
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
yes it is ;-) (none / 1) (#287)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:43:56 AM EST

because now you understand how heroin addiction works

heroin addiction doesn't rob your free will as a tyrant or a social ill might do, it robs you of your DESIRE TO HAVE FREE WILL

after awhile, like an asteorid in a planet's gravitational well, that's all you crave, you get sucked in: you can't fight it, it becomes more important than life itself

a shadow of your former self, a zombie, a slave to a chemical, bonded with chains no demonic human being could ever forge

heroin robs you of your MIND

repeat: it doesn't rob your free will as a tyrant or a social ill might do, it robs you of your DESIRE TO HAVE FREE WILL

and, since you understand the biochemistry of heroin, you understand WHY it is so relentless and unescapable, and you appreciate these facts more viscerally

;-)


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

[ Parent ]

I'm glad most folks (none / 0) (#302)
by army of phred on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:18:03 AM EST

see that you're full of shit.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
who are you talking about? (none / 1) (#317)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:34:51 PM EST

the addicts lying to themselves about their addiciton that i'm arguing with in this thread?

denial is a powerful thing

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

[ Parent ]

typical (none / 1) (#320)
by army of phred on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:47:56 PM EST

someone disagrees with you, they're addicts. Classic CTS.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
read some of the people i am responding to (none / 1) (#325)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:10:37 PM EST

they are talking about their use of hard drugs

what other people did you have in mind then when you wrote "I'm glad most folks see that you're full of shit."


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

[ Parent ]

most folks on k5 (nt) (none / 0) (#342)
by army of phred on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:59:35 PM EST



"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
wow! that's cool! (none / 1) (#344)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:03:58 PM EST

you can see into other people's minds on k5!

that's a pretty amazing superpower!

i'm like so ashamed right now ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

nonsense (none / 0) (#510)
by army of phred on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:09:51 AM EST

its just when I go visit zeroland, you're one of the regulars.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
Did you notice how not one of them (none / 0) (#506)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:29:09 AM EST

was talking about addiction? In fact they were saying quite the opposite, that they haven't become addicted. But of course, they're in denial or flat out lieing or something like that, because you couldn't possibly ever be wrong about anything could you?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Heh, well aren't you the unknowing Joke (none / 0) (#272)
by vile on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:06:37 AM EST

It's simple to become addicted to alcohol. My father was an alcoholic, my grandfather was an alcoholic, one sip later, I am too. Moron.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
not true (none / 0) (#277)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:16:20 AM EST

it is biologically harder to get addicted to alcohol than it is to stimulants (cocaine, meth) or heroin (endorphin: pleasure)

of course you can get addicted to alcohol, but only after a lot of repetition

there are lots of people who drink now and then

but there aren't that many people who snort coke/ take meth/ shoot heroin only now and then... the drug decides instead of them a lot sooner, due to the biochemistry of addiction

ease of addicition

try to understand the concept someday

;-P


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

[ Parent ]

you are blind (none / 0) (#291)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:40:40 AM EST

if you don't think you can use coke/heroin/etc recreationaly, you are blind.

It goes on all the time. I could name 20-30 people off the top of my head, and have seen many more.

In fact, the only drugs I see people get problems with on any regularity are alcohol and nicotine.

Almost everybody uses other thins one every few months.

And yes I know the biochemistry involved - do you want me to explain it to you? And how it can be circumvented? As I said, it just takes education.

Don't tell me you are one of the people that believes you can get addicted to heroin in one use. That's patently false. Otherwise, we'd be a nation of addicts, given how much morphine is handed out like candy in hospitals across the country every day.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

there are 5 stages of grief (none / 1) (#319)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:45:08 PM EST

  1. denial
  2. anger
  3. bargaining
  4. depression
  5. acceptance
about your addiciton, i would say you are at step #1 right now

i can't argue with an addict in denial, because the passion you are bringing to bear on the issues at hand have more to do with your own internal psychology: propping up the illusions necessary for you to avoid what is happening to you

i'm using reason, you're using a desperate need for a drug... your words are high powered by a passion for a demon

do you have any idea of what you are playing with?

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

so i should just use your reasoning when the cop pulls me over?

likewise, i can also go rock climbing with just my barehands, and never fall

is that what drug use is like? surely if i fell i wouldn't hit anybody: only i suffer

but what you don't seem to understand is that your drug use is not rock climbing, where if you fall no one gets hurt, it is mor eakin to driving down the highway at high speeds, where your accident hurts other people

THEREFORE SOCIETY HAS EVERY RIGHT TO FIGHT THE LIKES OF YOU

you live in society, whether you admit to it or not, and when you fall, it will hurt those around you, in ways you will never admit, i know

because you are in denial, you have a monkey on your back

everything is blue skies and roses with the demons you are playing with

yup, you keep up that tune, let me know how cheerful and wonderful it is to play with hard drugs

the song of the damned


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

[ Parent ]

Sorry CTS (none / 0) (#300)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:07:24 AM EST

Lots of people I know use cocaine a few nights in a row (they buy a gram) and then don't touch it for a couple of months or longer. I know addiction does happen, some people like it too much and start using a lot, but there are an awful lot of people I know who use it recreationally without habits forming or dependency issues.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
i know a guy (none / 0) (#318)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:38:23 PM EST

who can drive 150 mph down the highway and never gets in an accident

the next time a cop pulls him over, should he just use your reasoning to the cop to get out of the ticket?

surely you understand the problem there, why can't you see the same problem with hard drugs? do you have an appreciation of what you are playing with?

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

[ Parent ]

wow (none / 0) (#356)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:46:15 PM EST

CTS - the king of the non-sequiter

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]
poor boy doesn't understand ;-) (none / 0) (#368)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:12:53 AM EST

the lesson is that you can drive 150 mph down the road for a long time, to no ill effects

but you're playing with fire, and the fire that you are playing with can hurt innocent people around you

like addiction

understand now dear? ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

again he misses the point (none / 0) (#378)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:05:02 AM EST

driving = affecting others on the road

my responsible drug use = affects only me

of course, you argue that last point... but I'm still waiting for a response on how it affects others.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

when your addiction sets in (none / 0) (#386)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:38:15 AM EST

it will be society that has to TRY to rehab you

oh i forgot, the biochemical rules of heroin addiction doesn't effect you, your superman

pfft

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

[ Parent ]

why? (none / 0) (#392)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:46:07 AM EST

you still havn't given a single shred of evidence to your theory that all people that use will eventually need rehab.

Sure, you have a couple stories from a long time ago. Anecdotal evidence at best.

Again I ask: Why don't all the millions of people that use opioids they got from the doctor need rehab? Do you have a response for this? Any evidence at all for your theory that all users will need rehab?

You make grand statements with no support whatsoever.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

they don't become addicts (none / 0) (#399)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:58:24 AM EST

because their access to it is controlled ;-)

anything else i can help you with today?


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

[ Parent ]

Ahem! (none / 0) (#504)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:21:53 AM EST

Lots of people become addicted to things like vicodin and valium, and other prescription meds.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
biochemical? (none / 0) (#538)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:03:55 PM EST

You have been refutes multiple times all over this thread. Your statements make quite clear you have absolutely no biochemical understanding of any method of addiction of any drug. Thus, each time you mention it, you become more of a douche-bag. Understand now, dear? ;-)

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#379)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:05:23 AM EST

Addiction does not hurt others around you like a car crash at 150 MPH does.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
it does (none / 1) (#385)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:36:43 AM EST

it's obvious you don't understand the ties that bind you to society


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

[ Parent ]
How is this anything to do with what I said? (none / 0) (#505)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:27:20 AM EST

You're the only moron in this thread dude.

You said "there aren't that many people who snort coke/ take meth/ shoot heroin only now and then" and I say there are. A hell of a lot. I know many people that do. I myself have done small amounts here and there with no problems and no cravings.

LOTS OF PEOPLE DO COKE ONLY NOW AND THEN. I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE DANGERS, ONLY REFUTING YOUR POINT.

think that's loud enough to get through? ;)

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Maybe the point is... (none / 0) (#234)
by vhold on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 04:04:04 AM EST

You most likely don't have a sound knowledge of biochemistry.  If you did, you probably would have said something slightly more meaty then something to the effect of "as all smart chemists know!!"

Their effects, health impacts, and addictiveness are extremely different.  You are making crap up.   If they were even roughly similar, why would anybody smoke marijuana when alcohol is universally and cheaply available?

The only thing you got right is that marijuana is not any more dangerous then alcohol..  You overcomplicated your argument to the point of total incorrectness.  

KISS, keep it simple stupid.  You think that just because you got one thing right your entire argument is untouchable?  Here's a very simple logic lesson for you buddy, truth is only true when it's all true, even the slightst amount of falseness makes the whole set false.

The reason we care is that you are representing something we do fundamentally agree with, but in a totall craptastical way.

You can't even handle basic constructive criticism without resorting to cursing en masse and name calling.  I beg you, please pretend to support COMPLETE ILLEGALITY of marijuana using your current debate abilities, it would be much more productive to our shared cause.

[ Parent ]

ok asshole (2.00 / 2) (#245)
by circletimessquare on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 11:56:45 AM EST

make a graph

on x plot addictiveness

write down dots for caffeine, alcohol, marijuana, lsd, cocaine, heroin, meth

all over the place

on y plot inebriation

write down dots for those drugs

on z plot helth effects

all over the place

something like lsd is highly inebriating, but not very addictive or unhealthy

something like meth is addicting, inebriating, and very unhealthy

something like heroin is very inebriating and very addicting, and unhealthy (dosage sensitivity: a little fuck up and boom)

nicotine: highly addictive, not that inebriating, unhealthy (smoke)

etc.

now notice alcohol and marijuana asshole:

mildly inebriating, alcohol and marjiuana mildly unhealthy (smoke), marijuana not really addictive, alcohol mildly addictive

so, like i've been saying for a number of posts now asswipe, these drugs are ROUGHLY the same for LEGAL questions when compared to other drugs

now go ahead and quibble about what i said about heroin, or quibble with me about how i characterize alcohol's addictiveness, whatever! move the little bits around in little bitty ways and make a big stink about the MINOR BULLSHIT

whatever you stupid fuck!

THE FUCKING POINT IS THEY ARE ROUGHLY THE SAME FOR LEGAL QUESTIONS SO STOP NITPICKING AND JUST FUCKING AGREE WITH ME ALREADY YOU MORON

so is there anything else i can help you with you stupid twat?

oh who am i kidding, here comes the whole brigade of indignant assholes who won't focus on the big picture and instead nitpick me to death, thatg because of LITTLE details i am wrong, when the BIG PICTURE OF ROUGH LEGAL APPROXIMATATION IS MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT

nitpicking morons everywhere


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

[ Parent ]

do you have some psychological issues? nt (none / 0) (#258)
by benna on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 03:56:56 PM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
yes (none / 1) (#275)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:59:12 AM EST

isn't it obvious?


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

[ Parent ]
It's fun. (none / 0) (#264)
by vhold on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 07:02:58 PM EST

I like how the more civil a person stays with you, the more off the deep end you go with name calling and cussing.

Do you even recognize the irony in the fact that you are accussing me of quibbling about unimportant details while you rant like a mad man just because somebody found fault with just part of something you said?  How do you defend yourself in verbal debate?  Have you ever read anything you wrote out loud to see what it would sound like?  I can only imagine that 12 year olds would be particularly impressed with how you totally burninate on random netizens.  That doesn't mean other people don't like it, but most people also aren't impressed or persuaded by clowns, just entertained.

What you see as an unimportant detail is the fact that you are trying to change what you originally said.  Now you are saying that the relative magnitude of the effects/addictiveness/etc are similar, when originally said that the things themselves are similar.  It's a pretty simple difference to understand.

Also I suppose I should iterate again that just because somebody agrees with the practical upshot of your arguments, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't point out the bits they don't agree with.  

Groupthink:
"The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view."

[ Parent ]

i'll take it you agree with me then (none / 1) (#276)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:13:03 AM EST

the lesson in civilty meanwhile is disregarded

i say what i say whenever the fuck i feel like saying it, and i'll take into consideration what other people think of me in real life instead

if you hadn't noticed, this is the internet, it doesn't exist for the reasons you think it does: civil discussion

but you keep up your campaign for social hygeine here, it's gonna make a big difference someday, i promise you!

LOL ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

quality of debate (none / 1) (#292)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:44:12 AM EST

You're right... this is the internet, and it is a free county (I assume).

You can say whatever you want.

Don't expect it to look good in the eyes of others, though. Ranting like an uninformed madman isn't a great way to lend support for your point.

It tends to make people ignore you...
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

except that (none / 1) (#314)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:14:28 PM EST

i have no respect for you, based on the propaganda you spew

would you mind telling me why i should talk to you in a calm reasonable manner when you churn out lies and blindness about an issue i care about deeply?

i'd rather stick my boot through your face, you propagandized asshole

your poison, your lies hurt everyone who reads them

the truth is that heroin oppresses people, it is a drug which robs people of free will

and i fight it, and fight liars like you

and i do so with passion, because i care about victims of this drugs, as i have seen what heroin does to people with my own eyes

and tha tpassion moves me to figth lying fucktwits like you, who spew the most amazing crap about heroin's innocence based on nothing but a pipe dream about heroin use in a world where HEROIN ADDICTION DOESN'T EXIST

why do people fight heroin asshole? why?

because they don't want them to be free? because they want to control them instead of the drug?

NO YOU FUCKING DELUDED FUCK, BECAUSE THEY CARE ABOUT NOT TURNING PEOPLE IN TO FUCKING ZOMBIES WITH NO FREE WILL

i fight for free will

you fight for oppression, and you're so fucking blind you don't even realize it

so you can fucking die before i'll listen to your lies about heroin with a straight face asswipe

A
D
D
I
C
T
I
O
N

what the FUCK does that mean to you when it comes to heroin?

jesus the fucking blindness and lies!


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

[ Parent ]

You are funny n/t (none / 1) (#323)
by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:08:11 PM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
thanks nt (none / 0) (#330)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:21:03 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
wow (none / 1) (#357)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:48:59 PM EST

almost a complete copy&paste from earlier in the thread

CTS is still trying to pretend that the rest of the thread doesn't exist, maybe? That if it's repeated here, it will be different this time?

I really need to start up a "control-freaks anonymous" to send people like CTS to. It'd "for their own good".

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

yes, copy and paste (none / 1) (#367)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:10:59 AM EST

when faced with the same idiocy again and again what would you have me do? :-)

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

[ Parent ]
Regular version. (none / 0) (#311)
by vhold on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 05:45:31 PM EST

"if you hadn't noticed, this is the internet, it doesn't exist for the reasons you think it does: civil discussion"

I can also assure you it doesn't exist for the reason you must think it does: blathering your verbal diarrhea all over it.

It isn't that you are just uncivil, you are basically incapable of defending your ideas.

If you have to constantly cuss and randomly throw slurs at people, it shows in one swift move that you aren't playing with the grown ups, you are on the playground intellectually.

Campaign for social hygiene?  That's just another example of how you can't defend yourself.  You're trying to shift the focus off your lame ideas and the pathetic way you represent them.

Look at your mantra, "i say what i say whenever the fuck i feel like saying it."  You think other people therefore aren't saying what they want the way they feel like saying it?  No, it's just that they feel and think the way fairly intelligent mature people do and you think and feel like an angry manchild.  

You seem to still think just having the last word wins an argument so you have this strategy of mass quantity over any quality.  You don't even seem capable of entertaining the notion of ever being partially wrong, that's an ultimate sign of weak minded immaturity.

You think the fact that the internet is full of garbage is a good justification to spew mass amounts of it yourself?  The only thing I've seen breed pestilence around here is you.

[ Parent ]

oh jesus ficking christ get off your high horse (none / 1) (#316)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:26:41 PM EST

i can't speak in a calm and reasonable manner to lying assholes

okay?

that's me: if someone says something nice and pleasant and absolutely evil to me, i will get upset and angry

ok?

can you fucking deal with that asshole?

let's put it his way:

there are people who value civilty over truth

there are people who value truth over civilty

on a regular basis all over this globe right now, politicians feed people quiet placid lies, because they know what you are telling me: human nature is conceited

human nature doesn't like loud rude honesty, it prefers a quiet placid lies

human psychology feeds people lies every day that are quiet, so people don't have ot face loud ugly truths

lying propagandizers and other assholes depend upon this psychology

i don't

so you should either go listen to a politician, or become one, but as far as i am concerned with your comment son my words FUCK OFF BITCH

loud rude honesty is my way, and FUCKERS like you who prefer your lies quiet and placid CAN FUCKING DROP FUCKING DEAD BEFORE I EVER CONSIDER YOUR BULLSHIT PATH TO LIES

THIS ISN'T AN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION IN AN IVORY TOWER, ASSHOLE

THIS IS LIFE I AM TALKING ABOUT

TRUTH

HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY

in some ugliness in life is TRUTH

and there are plenty of assholes in your world who aid and abbet suffering because they turn their eyes away from what is ugly

simply because it isn't pleasant

but it is still the TRUTH

i think i have more of a human conscience than you: i am willing to talk in veins of discussion you are unwilling to, even if it means you sacrifice the truth, because you like things pleasant civil

FUCK THAT

go back to ivory tower asshole, don't get all uppity in my face, the tone in your last post reveals that you CAN handle ugliness after all

in short, suck my fucking dick, or die

but either way FUCK OFF


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

[ Parent ]

You are not truth. (none / 1) (#321)
by vhold on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:59:49 PM EST

No, you really aren't truth..  here are the actual points you ignored to address in this thread that you instead chose to ignore and replace with your common bile.

Sound knowledge of biochemistry, so far, you've failed to show any biochemical similarity between alcohol and marijuana.  Not only did you appeal to authority, you appealed to one you fabricated.  You've been called on this several times but havn't even tried to defend it.

The addiction differences between alcohol and marijuana are profoundly different.  Nobody has died from marijuana toxicity, yet you claim their health and addiction properties are similar.  

The only thing I agreed with is that marijuana wasn't -more- dangerous then alcohol.  I never agreed they had similar levels of dangerousness.

The simple fact that I have been disagreeing with you on these points and you continue to say that I agree with you entirely, yet you claim to speak the truth?  You can't even seem to grasp that entirely simple logical concept.

Of course I'll have to repeat this again, but you originally said that the effects themselves were similar, then you changed your tune to say that the magnitudes of the effects were similar.  You can't change the fact that the original thing you said was WRONG and that no amount of this hand waving garbage is going to change that.

[ Parent ]

oh my god (none / 1) (#328)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:16:43 PM EST

so that post of mine with inebriation, addictiveness, toxicity: x, y, and z

where marijuana is close to alcohol when compared to the likes of nicotine, heroin, lsd, etc.

for the purposes of LEGAL REASONS

didn't convince you?

you'd rather nitpick with the small details and think that somehow negates my points about the larger pciture?

are you ok?

what the fuck is your problem abou the point i am trying to make?

thc and ethanol have radically different ways of work on the body

REALLY??

NO SHIT SHERLOCK!!

OMG I'M BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER

that's not what i'm talking about you stupid prick!

what the fuck is wrong with you?


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

[ Parent ]

Finding truth is nitpicking to you. (none / 0) (#332)
by vhold on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:24:32 PM EST

Your scatterplot post was basically an attempt at a correction to your original incorrect post, something you will never admit to.  You call it clarification, but you are fundamentally saying something very different.  Maybe you just aren't capable of understanding that.

You make things up and wave your hand, 'anybody with a sound knowledge of biochemistry', yet you consider it nitpicking when people point out these blatent and extreme fabrications?  You still havn't tried to defend it, how many posts later?  You apparently pride yourself on expressing your strong opinions, but could you please stop expressing false facts?

You don't care about truth.

You care about having the largest mouth possible and drowning out all truth.

You are exactly like a politician because you think it is a sign of weakness to admit ever being wrong.

[ Parent ]

oh man (none / 1) (#343)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:01:33 PM EST

you say i am changing what i am saying over time

but what i am saying hasn't changed

if you can show me that what i said at first is different than what i said in my scatterplot post, then you are correct

but you can't

go ahead, do it, show me the shifting ;-)

because if you go back to my posts, and read them, you will see there is no shifting of what i am saying! ;-)

maybe the shifting is occuring in your mind? alzheimer's at a young age is such a shame... maybe you should stay away from the drugs

LOL ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

No prob. (none / 1) (#349)
by vhold on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:37:28 PM EST

First, note that you've tried to push aside the chemical knowledge bit again.. but it's comin' back atcha!

How you contradicted yourself?

You originally:

"that is because 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."

Then:

"THE FUCKING POINT IS THEY ARE ROUGHLY THE SAME FOR LEGAL QUESTIONS SO STOP NITPICKING AND JUST FUCKING AGREE WITH ME ALREADY YOU MORON"

So... originally they are biochemically the same, then they become the same for legal questions.  Hmm.. biochemistry.. then.. law.. uhmm..

Yea.. this is why the bit about you making up your sound knowledge of biochemistry is so important, it is also the bit that the original replier pointed out:

"What a total bunch of crap. Compare the LD50's of the two drugs and you will realize why I say that."

Since you seem way too busy to actually research anything you say: http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/gen007.htm

That actually includes 2 5 dimension plots similar to the one you created.  All I had to do to find that was put in "LD50 alcohol marijuana" into google.  They are pretty far from each other.

Here are a couple more, which I found by adding the researcher's names to the search and replacing 'LD50' with 'comparison'.

http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/org/ssdp/factbook.pdf

[ Parent ]

dude, look at my two quotes again (none / 1) (#365)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:08:38 AM EST

"that is because 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."

then

"THE FUCKING POINT IS THEY ARE ROUGHLY THE SAME FOR LEGAL QUESTIONS SO STOP NITPICKING AND JUST FUCKING AGREE WITH ME ALREADY YOU MORON"

your problem seems to revolve around my use of the phrase "with a sound understanding of biochemistry"

without that phrase, do you agree or disagree i am basically saying the same thing? (we will assume yes for the moment, you can disagree with me if you like, although i don't see how)

so what exactly wrankles you so much about "with a sound understanding of biochemistry"?

what did i mean by that? that the drugs have the same biochemistry? oh yeah! that's what i meant! ethanol and thc are the same in the body! that's what i was saying! LOL ;-)

or maybe i meant "they have ROUGHLY the same inebriating/ incapacitating, addicting, and unhealthy effects"

which is... uh... what i said HA ;-P

and now we have your links...

the worst drug, in all 3, seems to be nicotine

NICOTINE!(well, one of them ranks nicotine 3x... 1 in the worst spot, the other two nicotine winds up almost as harmless as marijuana... so it's a lot clearer now! ;-P )

i can babble incoherently awhile about these astonishing results, but i'll just pose a simple question to you:

what is the value of your links when the WORST drug on them is nicotine?

no really, let's hear it: tell me about the value of these links in their completeleness to adequately evaluate the legalitry/ illegality of drugs if fucking NICOTINE is the vilest of evil on them (wtf?!)

LOL ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

You are wrong, then change the subject. (again) (none / 0) (#372)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:39:01 AM EST

So basically you don't even care that your comparison of alcohol and marijuana is most likely wrong, as the only evidence provided suggests, then you try to shift over to nicotine instead.

What exactly is your point here, that .. nicotine is good.. that .. what the hell?  This has -nothing- to do with what we were talking about.

How pointless and irrelevant is that to the original conversation?

Then the even bigger retardedness here is that you had a huge at-it with another guy who tried to say nicotine was worse then herion in terms of depedence, then basically after seeing 3 seperate links, from different researchers, that you seem to think means nicotine is more addictive, you are only able to disregard the research put in front of you because it would prove you wrong on multiple fronts!

Him:

"There is some interesting research that suggests nicotine is more addictive in some ways."

You:

"heroin is more addictive than nicotine.
fact."

Researchers: (the links previous provided, which you interpreted as agreeing with benna)

You:

"what is the value of your links when the WORST drug on them is nicotine?"

.... What the hell?  So basically your argument is that.. because you (CTS) were wrong about both the similarity between alcohol and marijuana -AND- you were wrong about herion and nicotine... that...  the results of many independant researches, cross referenced against multiple sites.. simultaneously coorelated and cross checked.... is worthless?

Don't you see how you basically disregard all reason, logic and evidence?

You suck at this!  This is so easy.  I have to defend my ideas and myself to real people in the real world all the time.  This is a walk in the park compared to dealing with a person who is too prideful to make any intellectual manuevers whatsoever.

[ Parent ]

seriously (none / 1) (#377)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:03:05 AM EST

I want whatever job CTS has... (he has a job? maybe I'm assuming)

It obviously needs no reasoning skills, or ability to defend even the simplest of points.

Heck, even the ability to stay on topic...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

N'ah (none / 1) (#382)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:22:31 AM EST

I actually used to think that way, that the easiest job would be the best.  But, I've discovered that the more challenging a job is generally the happier I will be, as long as challenging doesn't mean sheer overload of work.  It's massively unrewarding when what you do has zero risk.

When I said I have to defend myself and my ideas a lot, it's because I help architect and implement decently complex systems, and the thing I should have clarified is that I'm definitely sometimes wrong.  I've definitely made mistakes, some big ones, but I've had to fix them, and I think the thing I've learned most from those experiences is to pay attention to what other people are saying and to also question myself regularly.

In my job, I second guess myself -all- the time and run as much as I can past people, to the point of being annoying, but in the long run, people mostly have seen it's worth it, especially after I've gone out for a few drinks with them :)  

That's why I like the real world quite a bit, we can reconcile our differences and understand each other in ways that these forums just can't comprehend.  I really love being proven wrong because it is within those moments that I feel the sharpest growth.  That in itself is probably a biochemical addiction I bet.

By being civilized, those moments can just plain feel good, I think most of the respect I've gained professionally has been in those moments of selflessness.  I've definitely screwed that up too, there have been times where I let pride dictate the entire situation, and I regret those times, they've led to the most complex screw ups I ever had to deal with, a few of which I wasn't able to figure out how to fix.

The logical mistakes I made, those I only grew from, it was only the prideful ones that I regret.

[ Parent ]

i have a link (none / 1) (#435)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:36:35 AM EST

that says ufos took elvis

IF YOU IGNORE THAT YOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION AND YOU HAVE NO REASONING SKILLS AND YOU CAN'T STAY ON TOPIC

;-P

the links he sent show nicotine to be the worst drug out there

you agree with that? ;-)

use your reasoning skills now...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

[ Parent ]

so it is your assertion (none / 1) (#432)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:33:50 AM EST

that nicotine is the worst kind of drug out there?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you're like "because you disregard these links based on the craziness of it's conclusions means you're an asshole avoiding the subject"

ok, i have a link that says ufos took elvis

FI YOU DISREGARD THAT LINK YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE TRYING TO AVOID THE QUESTIONS!!!

fucking hilarious!

so you agree? nicotine is the worst kind of drug out there?

please, le tme know, this is fucking hilarious BWAHAHAHAHA ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

Only you said that.. (none / 0) (#451)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:56:32 AM EST

I never said nicotine was the worst drug out there, you are the one that interpreted that from the results, in fact I make that clear in my response to you.

You:

"NICOTINE!(well, one of them ranks nicotine 3x... 1 in the worst spot, the other two nicotine winds up almost as harmless as marijuana... so it's a lot clearer now! ;-P )
...
what is the value of your links when the WORST drug on them is nicotine?"

So basically you intrepret them as being worthless because one of them says nicotine is the worst.  That's actually impressive, you managed to bust logic in a single post.

First you say -one- of them says something you subjectively disagree with, then you use it as a justification to disregard all them, even though they say something different.  Furthermore, it was unrelated to what we originally talking about, alcohol vs marijuana.  Another lost attempt at derailing the real subject.

Then I said:

"then basically after seeing 3 seperate links, from different researchers, that you seem to think means nicotine is more addictive"

Notice I said 'You seem to think means....'  That means that I interpreted the results differently from you.  

Then you try to argue that's what I believe:

"so it is your assertion that nicotine is the worst kind of drug out there?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

but in reality I was just pointing out the fact that it seems to me you only reacted that way because you could have potentially proven yourself wrong on two fronts if that is how you saw the available data.

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 1) (#454)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:59:40 AM EST

so is nicotine the worst drug out there or not?

that's what the links say

would you mind answering the question?

i can see the beads of sweat on your brow from here with that circuitous bs!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

[ Parent ]

Learn to read? (none / 0) (#466)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:12:11 AM EST

Let's see.. do the links say that...

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/gen007.htm

Henningfield clearly doesn't find nicotine as dangerous as heroin.

Nor does Benowitz.. ok.  Not even close..

Where exactly did you get this nicotine is more dangerous thing anyways from these links.

Did you screw up and think that -higher- numbers were -more- dangerous?  It's pretty clear on the fact that higher numbers are less dangerous.

Ok.. fine.. I'll go onto the next one..

http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm

Henningfield : nope.. nicotine comes in the middle.. definitely not the worst.

Benowitz : Nope.. same spot.

Aahh. but the addictiveness comes in greater then anything else, it just doesn't come out as the worst drug because it's other effects aren't as profound, it's just a fairly bad habit.  Hmm, maybe you are unable to differentiate between addictiveness and badness.

And finally..  http://www.mtholyoke.edu/org/ssdp/factbook.pdf

Nope, nicotine ain't the worse, it's in the middle of the pack again.

So how in the world did you come up with your conclusion that nicotine was the worst?  Did you even look at the links?  Or did you decide that addiction alone meant it was the worst and base your entire argument off of that?

Wow, maybe the entire point of these multi-dimensional charts is to try to judge things in a more complex manner then BEST and WORST. This is something you almost had within your grasp, then because of your pride, you disregarded available evidence because it would prove you wrong.

[ Parent ]

are we looking at the same charts? (none / 1) (#471)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:18:56 AM EST

the japanese one: nicotine worst

the pdf: nicotine worst

the one with 3 studies: 2 have nicotine worst, one has it as mild as marijuana

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

[ Parent ]

No we aren't. (none / 0) (#488)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:39:40 AM EST

Japanese page:

Henningfield...
Nicotine: 3 4 2 1 5 = 12
Heroin:   2 2 1 2 2 = 9

Benowitz...
Nicotine: 3 4 4 1 6 = 18
Heroin:   2 2 2 2 2 = 10

Remember.. lower numbers are -worse-

http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm even does the work for you by putting them order and showing their averages.  Nicotine definitely isn't the worst.

And the pdf may put nicotine over on the left, but it's not the worst is it ?

Nicotine : 1 3 2 4 5 = 15
Heroin   : 2 2 1 2 2 = 9

So I really just do not get how it is you intrepreted this data.  

But take a look at the depedence and withdrawal numbers between heroin and nicotine, they are pertty similar across all these surveys.  That is a big part of what contradicts your argument with benna.

However in terms of overall -badness-, because they all find the direct health impacts and tolerance building speed of heroin to be so much worse, heroin is a lot more dangerous overall.

Benna: "There is some interesting research that suggests nicotine is more addictive in some ways. Heroin withdrawl is probobly worse, but for some reason many people are more likely to succeed in dropping a smack habbit."

You: "heroin is more addictive than nicotine
fact
now show me some science that proves me wrong, and you will shut me down
until then, shut the fuck up"

Do you see how easy it is for me to see that you disregard the truth around you?  

I mean, he was just talking about addictiveness, and now we have some research to show they are pretty similar.  

Then you say things like "Fact! Now shut the fuck up!"

Then you try to argue that just because some stuff says the addictiveness is worse, we must all be thinking that nicotine is the worst drug EVER!  And you also don't seem to be able to intrepret these simple charts correctly.

What the heck is going on in your head?

[ Parent ]

snore... (none / 1) (#499)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:59:04 AM EST

http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

Among heroin' addicts, about 3 percent rank the urge to smoke as equal to or stronger than the urge to take heroin.

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

[ Parent ]

Aaaand then? (none / 1) (#501)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:13:42 AM EST

And that defended you in anyway whatsoever how?

That link even includes the same 5 dimensional charts, in fact it's the original story some of the other pages reference.

Can you even understand that is referring to EXISTING heroin addicts?  That's a whole entire other realm.

This whole concept of many dimensions of comparison.. somehow.. you are kinda aware of it, but only when you think it's convienant.. eh?

"When heavily dependent users of cocaine are asked to compare the urge to take cocaine with the urge to smoke cigarettes, about 45 percent say the urge to smoke is as strong or stronger than that for cocaine."

Gee, I guess that means that cigarettes are only half as bad as cocaine.  Wait, cocaine is really bad, does that mean 2 cigarettes are as bad as .. 1 cocaine?  And most smokers.. smoke like.. way more then that a day.. omg cigarettes are like.. omg!

Apples and oranges baby.  Not only is that out of context quote relatively meaningless to this discussion, you are trying to shift away from the topic again.

The fact that you are trying to do with what you are implying as contradictory evidence, which -includes- the original evidence is even more amazing.

Before you get confused again trying to deal with that, can you go back a little bit and try to defend the fact that you totally misinterpreted the original 3 pages of evidence?  

This link and out of context quote you've provided is a clear cut attempt at avoiding that annoying little detail.

[ Parent ]

the ranting (none / 0) (#358)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:55:00 PM EST

wow... I think you struck to the heart of it. CTS seems to be unable to ever admit he was wrong about anything, even when caught in a very simple logic trap like you presented.

I hadn't thought about the politician-angle before... that's very apropos. A total disregard for logic and empiticism, while appealing only to the emotinal argument.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

Other similarities (none / 0) (#360)
by vhold on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:35:29 PM EST

Politicians can win by having the most air time, their budgets partially dictate this, also the sound bite worthiness of what they say is key.

CTS dictates this with a sheer volume of communication through posting.  This is why he has no time for either research or coherency, he is too busy attempting to shout down every single person who disagrees with him without care for the truth.

Politicians think they are winning when they have a cheering crowd, truth is secondary.  

CTS has attracted a bit of a following, but they respect him in the way some people respect Johnny Knoxville.  As a disruptive menace, that destroys rather then creates.

Johnnny Knoxville though actually does risky things, and in a sense creates since he does creative things and creates a product.

CTS on the other hand has basically admitted he hides behind the anonymity of the internet to allow himself to rant insanely when he said that in real life he conducts himself in a more civil fashion, I don't see how anybody can respect that.  It fundamentally means that in a real world, he would be too afraid to speak in the way that occurs to him naturally, and that basically means the natural way he thinks is worthless in the real world.  His posts then are just pointless manifestations of his fear.  

We can say the same things in the real world that we do online, he cannot.  It's hard to think of a more powerful red flag for irrelevancy.

Politicians seem to articulate themselves topically and thoughtfully when they have a monologue, but when questioned about the points of what they've said, they are all about dodging and spinning.  They generally don't hold true debates.

CTS generally starts with pretty good posts, but he goes all nutso when anybody questions anything.

That's his biggest difference from a politician, a politician can't look like a raving madman, he would lose all relevancy because of how extremely pointless such a person would look, like a bum talking to himself on a street corner.  CTS is pretty transparent at spinning, he's only good at trolling.  He takes it to a slightly serious level that doesn't allow him to admit he mostly is a troll.

Having said all of that, I give him the credit that he can put together a decent thought at first.  His inability to accept or deal with criticism is the key.

I really do honestly believe that he will have a profound epiphany about the nature of seeking truth.

If not he is just a very calculated and amazing troll, has a developmental disability, or.. something I can't understand.

[ Parent ]

wow (none / 1) (#361)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:18:38 PM EST

the founding members of my fan club

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


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

[ Parent ]

Explain it <nt> (none / 0) (#362)
by vhold on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:22:42 PM EST



[ Parent ]
explain what? (none / 1) (#366)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:09:51 AM EST

your need to psychoanalyze me?

ok, you're a sycophant ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

Let's simplify. (none / 0) (#373)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:39:10 AM EST

People who truly seek truth remain civil for a simple reason, it makes it easier to admit they are wrong.

They value truth over their pride.  They value truth over being right.

People who value their pride over truth resort to the lowest common denomination of tactics in order to bolster their own pride.

Once you've called a person a moron, or any name, you can no longer admit you were wrong, because doing so would make you the bigger moron.  You've painted yourself into a corner that you can't get out of without some real pain.

Humble people who care not for such garbage are able to just admit they are wrong and actually gain respect as such, because they've shown what they care about is truth, not themselves.

It took me virtually no time to understand you, it didn't require pyschoanalysis...  Why?  Because I was in a similar frame of mind when I was 13.  I didn't give a fuck about shit, I didn't care what anybody said about me or what I said, and you know what, everything I said was for naught, totally inconsequential and totally pointless.  I couldn't defend myself worth shit, about the only ability I had was to run away.

When I originally said that maybe you were developmentally disabled, another thought occured to me afterwards.  You could be developmentally derailed.  Whatever support it is that you've garnered from.. this.. on the internet has basically given you a false feedback loop.  That is why I mentioned groupthink earlier, basically you've been misled to think you are right just because some number of like minded people are backing you up.

You really have next to no ability to defend anything you say on almost any intellectual level.

[ Parent ]

what i value (none / 1) (#383)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:35:33 AM EST

loud rude honesty over quiet placid lies

anything else i can help you with?

i don't seem to have lost a single argument yet


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

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (none / 0) (#388)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:42:34 AM EST

Real people lose arguments, because nobody is absolutely perfect, such a person would lead us all to ultimate salvation effortlessly.  They'd be able to solve all problems.

You are simply incapable of admitting you are wrong, therefore you are incapable of growing.

That's not particularly impressive.  You've lost many arguments.  The reason you have no time to research anything you say is because you are constantly going in circles fighting battles you've already lost on logical and/or factual fronts long ago.

A person capable of growth would be able to just admit his faults easily and then spend the saved time actually learning and researching.

[ Parent ]

heehee ;-) (none / 1) (#397)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:57:05 AM EST

i'm frequently capable of doing wrong, i am not perfect, i am wrong on a lot of issues

but on everything i've talked about with you, i've come out on top the entire way

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


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

[ Parent ]

not quite (none / 1) (#400)
by endymion on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:59:11 AM EST

copy&paste spaming with no evidence does not equate to winning an argument...

it just drives people away...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

dude, i've flattened you on every issue (none / 1) (#403)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:01:41 AM EST

copy and paste works wonders when your confronted with the same idiocy over and over


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

[ Parent ]
You believe yourself? (none / 0) (#426)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:50 AM EST

Please iterate how you came out on top, that is pure troll speak.  I'm still entertaining the possibility that you are just a good troll, and if that is the case, I am impressed, but only because you take it so far.  Most trolls just troll and walk away, you seem to stick with it.

But as somebody that can actually contribute to intelligent conversation?

I'm absolutely convinced at this point that you believe you are right, by your nature of not being able to entertain simple criticism, so just by you saying you are correct, that doesn't mean a lot to me.  

"no really, let's hear it: tell me about the value of these links in their completeleness to adequately evaluate the legalitry/ illegality of drugs if fucking NICOTINE is the vilest of evil on them (wtf?!)"

That's it.. that's all you had..  it didn't even mean anything.  What were you were attempting to say?  That because cigarettes are not illegal.. that.. that means something?

That's utterly ridiculous because your original argument was that marijuana shouldn't be illegal because alcohol is legal!  You've already established in your own mind that one legal drug isn't worse then marijuana, but when you read evidence that another one also isn't worse.. then you disregard all the evidence?

... Does that mean we should believe that marijuana is worse then both?  Man, this is why I think you shouldn't be representing -anything- I believe in!

This is why I think you suck so badly at this.

And why?  It's because your pride!  You can't handle being wrong!  You lead yourself down a path of self deception so that you never feel wrong.  You screw it all up!

So far in your mind you've come out on top by disregarding all evidence and logic..  And uhm.. contributing.. well.. some insults and topic changing.  You can't even manage a topic change without leading back into your lack of knowledge somewhere else.

[ Parent ]

it's like this (none / 1) (#431)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:31:34 AM EST

your'e throwing pebbles and think it means a difference about the rocks of gibraltar of truth i am talking about

what you do is you take the lessons of prohibition and weigh them against the lessons of addiction

what happens is that for less addictive substances: alcohol, marijuana, caffeine: prohibitions lessons previal

and more addictive substances: cocaine, meth, heroin: addiciton's lessons prevail

that's my point

you think all these minor tangential points somehow changes these larger truths

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

[ Parent ]

Except (none / 0) (#434)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:35:59 AM EST

What you call "minor tangential points" are what the rest of us call "evidence." What you have set in your mind as some grand "Truth" is of little consequence to us.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
ok, let's go with you (none / 1) (#436)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:38:04 AM EST

what does your evidence point to in the larger context of the points i am making?

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

[ Parent ]
that... (none / 0) (#437)
by benna on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:39:38 AM EST

The negatives of prohibition outweigh those of addiction.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
yes they do (none / 1) (#441)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:48:37 AM EST

for mildly addictive substances, but not majorly addictve ones (stimulants, opiates)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

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

[ Parent ]

Anyone with a sound knowledge of biochemistry... (none / 1) (#518)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:35:08 AM EST

...would realize that not all stimulants, nor all opiates, are majorly addictive.

Of course, I may be misinterpreting your broken grammar.

To really throw yourself for a loop, why don't you take a look at what society was like when morphine and heroin were included in many over the counter products? We had lots of addicts, but very few "junkies". Because the supply was cheap and available.

Here's a bit of truth for you. People can live a VERY long and productive life shooting heroin every single day, if it's cheap, clean, and measured acurately. The 3 big problems with heroin addiction under a black market economy are that you may start committing other crimes to support your habit, you may get an infection due to unsanitary processes, or you may OD because you don't know the purity of what you're taking.

Legalizing and regulating would solve all 3 problems. Not to mention we would stop filling our prisons with people who need treatment for their sickness, not anal rape.

[ Parent ]

Here's a funny little chart.... (none / 0) (#521)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:46:43 AM EST

...that you would have found if you spent 5 minutes on google trying to stop what comes out of your mouth (keyboard?) from sounding so stupid.

http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm

[ Parent ]

You cop out again. (none / 0) (#438)
by vhold on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:44:27 AM EST

This is your original cop out, that the incorrect things you actually said don't matter because some part of it was right.  Remember the original poster?  "I was with you until..."

This is why the whole start of this conversation was that we don't want you representing our shared beliefs.  It's because the way you represent them is counterproductive.

By making crap up like "anybody with a sound knowledge of biochemistry..." you sound like a total crackpot.  It is NOT good for our shared beliefs.

This is something you STILL have not been able to defend.  Your best defense was that the cross referenced supplied evidence should be ignored because it disagreed with some other thing you said!!!  WAKE UP!!!  You havn't supplied ANYTHING even remotely objective.

When these simple things are pointed out to you, you focus on your own pride and sense of being right over any real truth.  The fact you claimed you seek the truth with these things are so plainly obvious to me was particularly offensive.

Your natural response to truths greater then your own subjectiveness is to basically put your hands over your ears and start going "nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you nyah nyah nyah" while running around the rooom.

If you don't have the facilities to defend yourself without being a child and ignoring the other side, you are detrimental to your own beliefs!

Let me say it again, you clearly value your own pride over truth!

[ Parent ]

i value the truth (none / 1) (#440)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:46:58 AM EST

truth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycontin


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

[ Parent ]

What? (none / 0) (#516)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:14:44 AM EST

i don't seem to have lost a single argument yet

Perhaps you don't "seem" to, but to anyone who actually pays attention, you've lost every argument you've ever been in on here.

There are basically two kinds of people at this site, people who have dealt with you before and shy away, or people who have dealt with you before, and like watching you go into a psychotic meltdown and spew all sorts of crap all over the place.

I'm in the second category.

In general I'm more right about whatever issue I engage you in, but eventually I just stop trying since you roll yourself into a ball of incoherence so thick I lose interest and stop posting.

But that doesn't mean you won. Reading back through the record will show you getting intellectually defeated over and over again...followed by a final post of "but I'm right" by you. Which is merely amusing, not really "winning" by any standard. By your standards, beating the crap out of the guys you are golfing with, or simply shouting swear words at them until they left the game, would mean you "won" the game of golf. But everyone else around would either laugh at you, or realize what an asshole you are...or maybe both...like me.

[ Parent ]

"I won" = YHBT. YHL. HAND. (none / 1) (#526)
by Bernie Fsckinner on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:35:41 PM EST

n/t

[ Parent ]
if this graph is to be belived (none / 0) (#298)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:11:07 AM EST

how come almost everone who uses heroin and nicotime will end up quiting heroin at some point, but still smokes? This is extreemly well documented.

I guess it's time to lock up all of the smokers, then, yes?

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

you would more effective (none / 1) (#312)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:07:19 PM EST

if you didn't make shit up

nicotine more addictive than heroin?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

man you fucking retards just stream out of the woodwork

propaganda is amazing


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

[ Parent ]

actually (none / 0) (#322)
by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:02:03 PM EST

There is some interesting research that suggests nicotine is more addictive in some ways. Heroin withdrawl is probobly worse, but for some reason many people are more likely to succeed in dropping a smack habbit.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
wow fascinating (none / 1) (#326)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:53 PM EST

who cares

There is some interesting research that suggests UFOs stole Elvis.

heroin is more addictive than nicotine

fact

have a nice day moron


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

[ Parent ]

good to know you have alot of respect for science (none / 0) (#327)
by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:14:17 PM EST

I'm glad you don't just ignore scientific research if it disagrees with what you think is true.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
i have a lot of respect for science (none / 1) (#329)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:20:16 PM EST

and you have a lot of respect for arguing with me for no purpose apparently

heroin is more addictive than nicotine

fact

now show me some science that proves me wrong, and you will shut me down

until then, shut the fuck up


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

[ Parent ]

here's a start (none / 0) (#337)
by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:46:26 PM EST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
you want me to do the research for you? (none / 1) (#341)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:57:07 PM EST

me: ""here is a simple fact"

you: "i disagree wih you, prove what i am saying for me"

wtf? LOL ;-)

burden of proof: if you say gravity doesn't exist, it behooves you to prove it, because the burden of proof lies on you, since you are the one saying something that runs counter to conventional scientific wisdom

i am saying heroin is more addicting than nicotine, according to science

you are saying otherwise

no problem: so prove it to me

since you can't then i've taken it that this thread has served as educational for you

your welcome for the intellectual charity

LOL ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#512)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:40:36 AM EST

...when you are floating the new assumption (which is what you are doing circle) it's up to YOU to prove yourself. Just because you deny the research that exists that does show that nicotine is more addictive in many cases than heroin, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You are the crackpot here. You need to do the research because your assertion doesn't line up with what is commonly known in the medical community.

It's both easier to get addicted to nicotine than heroin, for a variety of factors, as well as being more difficult to quit. (In terms of number of people who succeed at either venture.) That is what the research on the subject shows. PubMED would be a great place to read the research, if you actually wanted to. But you don't.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, but continue to rant on...

[ Parent ]

exactly (none / 0) (#359)
by endymion on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:56:03 PM EST

heroin withdrawl is much worse, but nicotine is much more reinforcing.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]
Uhm, Cigarettes (none / 0) (#271)
by vile on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:02:24 AM EST

that should NEVER be legal: their quick and easy addiction profile, heavy inebriation/ incapacitation experience, and deathly adverse health effects means these hard drugs are verboten, end of story.

Please explain the difference between cigarettes and the above statement? Thanks.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
ok (none / 0) (#274)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:51:06 AM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/6/9/3146/11806/245#245

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

[ Parent ]
Inebriation/incapacitation experience means: (none / 0) (#527)
by Bernie Fsckinner on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:43:22 PM EST

inebriation/incapacitation = stumbling drunk/lying in the gutter Despite CTS's trollishness, he actually has a point here. You can't get ripped on tobacco.

[ Parent ]
We used to smear soot in wounds, too... (2.00 / 7) (#19)
by sudog on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 12:37:08 PM EST

...should we resurrect that practice and maybe mix in a bit of dried urine too?

Good for what ails yeh. After all, we've been doing it for hundreds of years, so it must be okay!

Oh, and leeching! And bloodletting.. all cherished medical practices for a long, long time.

I hate that argument.


2 things (2.66 / 3) (#20)
by lostincali on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 12:43:04 PM EST

1) I put that in there to try to get people to realize that Cannabis use hasn't always been viewed so negatively, as many assume. In fact, it has often been viewed quite positively

2) It's generally used as a pain reliever, and users report relief. Isn't that what we're going after? I don't think it's quite the same as the scenario you suggest

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

These kinds of drugs... (3.00 / 3) (#26)
by sudog on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 01:37:03 PM EST

...have been viewed negatively in some facets of society for quite some time actually. Right back when the Assassin's Guild in the middle east was offing people for looking at them cross-eyed and keeping their members doped up on drugs like hash as a mind-control vector, people despised the use of the drug for this reason.

We have Hulagu Khan to thank for the destruction of every last assassin and every last assassin fortress. I suppose it was a testament to how weak-willed they were that they were destroyed by subterfuge their own cherished leader participated in.

So the drug's history isn't all roses.


[ Parent ]

i'm sure in many societies (none / 1) (#31)
by lostincali on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 03:17:25 PM EST

there have been groups who were more lenient with drugs, and groups who were intolerant. It seems likely that each group has been able to exercise a varying amount of control at different periods in history. I'm for leniency at this point in time.

I certainly appreciate your comments, and the point you've made, but this is getting a somewhat tangential. I am writing an OP-ED after all. :-)

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

beer as mind control vector (none / 1) (#239)
by catmatic on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 06:21:41 AM EST

Now, let's see, which societies that Weren't Very Nice used beer as a "mind control vector?" Paging Dr. Godwin!

[ Parent ]
Leeching (2.50 / 2) (#22)
by Trevasel on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST

Leeches are still in use medically to drain blood from reattached appendages while they heal.
-- That which does not kill you only makes you stranger - Trevor Goodchild
[ Parent ]
They weren't used exclusively for this in the past (none / 1) (#27)
by sudog on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 01:41:04 PM EST

...but I knew someone would comment on this.

Anyway, leeches were not used for specific, sound medical purposes like this in the past, and that is the use I was referring to.


[ Parent ]

Yes, but it turned out that in some cases...... (none / 0) (#86)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 09:53:21 AM EST

they help, didn't it?

When there's no scientific method (as there wasn't at the time) then anecdotes take over. Anecdotal evidence existed for leeches helping things and so the practice spread. There are other uses for them now as science finds them.

This is exactly what the story submitter would like - proper research into Medicinal Marijuana to find out what the properties are and how they can be best used. What we have now is the anecdotal stage, and that's all we'd ever get with your attitude.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
uh... (none / 0) (#173)
by sudog on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:18:42 AM EST

I'll not be responding to your silly refusal to make an attempt at adult, civilised conversation, since it generally requires that both sides make an effort to understand the intercourse.

For the record, I was merely pointing out how his appeal to traditionl was anything but--that history shows that many uses of the stuff were viewed in a very negative light.

Now go away, and pester someone else.


[ Parent ]

I would like to say... (none / 1) (#220)
by Have A Nice Day on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 06:40:09 PM EST

Fuck you troll.

Your attitude in this thread has been one of wanton stupidity, boiling down to "Medicinal marijuana obviously has no merit because all herbal and traditional remedies are crap".

I'd be the first to say just because something is traditional and/or natural doesn't mean it's effective, but it sure as hell means it's worth investigating.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Oh yes (3.00 / 10) (#29)
by Sgt York on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 02:05:36 PM EST

Just like willow-bark tea1 for a fever or pains. Or foxglove2 for "the wasting". Anything done in the past and once abandoned must be crap.

Leeching turned out to be a bad thing, and research demonstrated it to be so. This is not restricted to traditional remedies. Vioxx & friends wound up having serious (albeit rare) side effects. Other treatments are turning out to be overpriced crap, not living up to the promises made. Others have had horrifying consequences when used widely.

Some old therapies were right on target, a kind of evolutionary form of the scientific method. Think of an old herbalist in the Middle Ages. The ones that found the roots/herbs/whatever that actually worked would have their ideas spread. Of course, others were just good at marketing and managing risk.

The same thing still happens today with modern drugs. Good ones are found, and mistakes are made. Real scientific method has greatly refined and accelerated the process. As a result you get leeching or aspirin, penicillin or thalidomide. A significant portion of traditional remedies have some merit. A much larger portion of modern remedies have merit. But modern or tradntional are not the same as good and bad.

1 Willow bark tea contains acetylsalicylic acid, or aspirin.

2 Foxglove contains a compound which is similar to the drug digoxin currently used to treat congestive heart failure, once called "the wasting". Digoxin is based on the extract from the plant.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Leeching turned out ok.... (3.00 / 2) (#87)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 09:53:46 AM EST

and so did maggots. Both are now bred for medical use.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
As pointed out before (none / 1) (#103)
by Sgt York on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:02:41 AM EST

However, the current use of leeches does not even resemble the antiquated use of leeches.

Today, they are used to maintain bloodflow through amputated regions or other severe injury. In olden days, they were placed around the body to cure a cold (and a variety of other ailments), because anytime you have extra fluids coming out, it must mean you have too much blood, and the humors must be brought into proper balance.

AFAIK, maggots were not used as a traditional remedy. They are useful today, though, in debridement of old wounds. They only eat dead tissue.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

True (none / 1) (#105)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:09:03 AM EST

They used to believe excess blood caused pretty much everything back then. Silly people.

But I still don't agree with the original poster, most of the things he mentions are fine. Soot is sterile, urine is mildly antiseptic....

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
sigh... (none / 1) (#177)
by sudog on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:30:21 AM EST

...Urine can also carry disease, and the collection, mixing, and application of soot was anything but sterile.

Where do people like you come from?


[ Parent ]

sudog (none / 1) (#202)
by Sgt York on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 09:41:32 AM EST

Is correct on urine. Urine is not sterile, as most people think. It is the most sterile fluid that comes out of the human body, but that is not the same thing as sterile.

Soot may have been slightly good, bad, or indifferent, depending. If it was collected OK and applied still hot, it would help a little bit. All in all, though, it may have been better than nothing.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

However... (none / 0) (#523)
by DavidTC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:04:35 PM EST

...drinking your own urine can't hurt anything. If something's in your urine, you most certainly have already caught it.

And it's 'sterile' in the same way it's antiseptic...it's very acidic, and hence a lot of stuff can't live in it. (And the stuff that can usually can't live in the human body, so couldn't be in it in the first place.)

That said, just drink some damn vinegar instead and stop freaking people out. ;)

Incidentally, while we don't practice bloodletting anymore, in theory it's a fairly sound concept. Get rid of the bad blood, and we make more. It's just that nothing we know of poisons blood slower than we can make more blood, so we're dead before the bad blood is gone. Otherwise we could use bloodletting instead of kidney dialysis. ;)

It sounds crazy, because we think it's obvious it hurts you, but something like half of all medicine 'harms you', it just harms disease more.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

For every working historical cure you name, (none / 1) (#174)
by sudog on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:27:10 AM EST

I can name one that didn't work and was to the detriment of patients. My original point remains, and is one you apparently ignored: The implication in the story is that historical use somehow validates modern use, with the corollary that since it didn't wipe out humans and we're still around, its use is therefore harmless.

These are both obvious fallacies.

With my counter-example, I was merely pointing this out, in a roundabout fashion. The fact that you, and people like you, have decided to make a hearty attempt at confusing the issue and deliberately failing to even attempt to understand the conversation simply means this is my last post in reply to you.

Ciao.


[ Parent ]

pot/kettle (2.33 / 3) (#205)
by Sgt York on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 09:53:17 AM EST

From me:
A significant portion of traditional remedies have some merit. A much larger portion of modern remedies have merit. But modern or tradntional are not the same as good and bad

From you:

For every working historical cure you name ... I can name one that didn't work and was to the detriment of patients
You seem to have deliberately misunderstood what I wrote.

I would go on, but by saying you refuse to talk to people like me, you make it evident that you are acting like a child. If you want to get into pharmacology, read some of my old diaries and stories before you decide to become so arrogant again. If you want to talk, then talk. Otherwise take your toys and go on home.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

There is value to historical use (none / 1) (#256)
by pyro9 on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 02:05:11 PM EST

While historical use is not in itself a justification, SUCCESSFUL historical use as judged with today's knowledge IS valuable.

Until a medication is in widespread use, it's just not possible to know what harm it may do. A drug with a long track record showing it to be safe AND effective is always better than something that seems AS effective, but has no record for safety beyond a couple of clinical trials on 1000 people.

That includes new processed versions of old herbal remedies. For example, when cocaine use consisted of chewing leaves with a bit of alkaline additive, it was about as safe as coffee. It wasn't until used in extracted form that it became a problem.

Other historically used treatments fail as either being unsafe, ineffective, or both, such as "drastics" (mercury salts)


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Soot would be sterile (3.00 / 5) (#88)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 09:55:22 AM EST

As it's the product of burning stuff, killing anything living on it. Urine contains antiseptic compounds and is also (usually) free of anything damaging as it's just come out of you. Leeches have medical uses now. Your point is what exactly?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
leeches and maggots in modern medicine (none / 1) (#162)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:42:38 PM EST

http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/0802/education/275.html

Creepy crawly medicine--does it work?

There are some more unusual techniques used in medicine, and they can also be a little gruesome. The thought of maggots crawling around on your skin is pretty unpleasant, but it does apparently have some therapeutic basis...

Imagine going to a doctor for a leg wound that just won't heal. Instead of prescribing antibiotics, the doctor suggests a treatment of maggots. Sounds horrible? You may have read stories with concentrated close ups of huge numbers of scary and non- sterile looking creatures and wondered why anyone would even consider such a treatment. But, disgusting as it sounds, scientific research has shown that, in some cases, such creepy crawlies may heal a wound more quickly and efficiently than modern medicine. "Biosurgery" using larvae such as maggots for treatment of difficult wounds is now becoming an established discipline in the management of difficult wounds.

VOLKER STEGER/SPL
Maggots

Maggot therapy (placing live sterile maggots on a wound, also known as larval therapy), in combination with surgery, was used during the early decades of the 20th century for treating osteomyelitis and purulent infections of the soft tissue.1 We have known for hundreds of years that soldiers whose wounds become infected with maggots are less likely to die from septicaemia than those who did not.2 Since the 1940s, when antibiotics became widely available, maggot therapy was used only as a last resort. But maggots have more recently again been used successfully in the treatment of various chronic soft tissue wounds, including neurovascular ulcers, venous stasis wounds, pressure ulcers, traumatic and surgical wounds, burns, and necrotic tumours.1­6 Larval therapy is currently being used in over 350 hospitals and institutions in the United Kingdom.7

The year 1995 remains a landmark in the history of maggot therapy when the first controlled prospective trial showed a significant improvement in the rate of healing associated with maggot therapy for treating pressure ulcers in patients with injuries to their spinal cord.7 The International Biotherapy Society was also formed in 1996 (www.homestead.
com/biotherapy/), which supports research and clinical use of maggot therapy and other biological therapeutics.

Mode of action

Maggot therapy by three main actions: debridement, or by liquefaction of necrotic tissue; elimination of infection; and hastened wound healing. These mechanisms are currently being investigated by several laboratories around the world. Debridement and healing has been noted in diabetic foot ulcers, venous stasis ulcers, and other chronic wounds where two or more conventional treatments had previously failed.1 2

Moving over the surface of wounds, maggots secrete a rich mixture of proteolyic enzymes, which liquidises dead tissue. Maggots then ingest this and, by raising the pH of wounds and secreting chemicals, can prevent the growth of some bacteria. Normal tissue is not removed because the enzymes are neutralised when they come into contact with it.2

It is important to select the appropriate wound for treatment with maggots. A moist exudating wound with adequate oxygen supply is a prerequisite for maggot therapy. Dry wounds and open wounds of body cavities are a contraindication. The maggots used for medical purposes do not burrow under patients' skin. They also do not multiply because a mature larva must leave a wound to pupate or it will die. A doctor using this procedure simply flushes the maggots out of a wound after several days (often removed after 3-5 days). Practical problems associated with maggot therapy include keeping the wound bed moist and the larvae from escaping the wound. Moving larvae can also cause a tickling sensation reported by some patients. These problems may be solved by applying dressings whereby the maggots are completely contained in their own cage, separated from, but in contact with, the patient. This can be done by placing the maggots on a hydrocolloid sheet under a net on the surface of wounds.2

Most of the literature on maggot therapy is anecdotal. More studies are needed to evaluate further the role of maggots in clinical practice. Maggots are still viewed as the antithesis of health and cleanliness. The aesthetic and psychological disadvantages of maggot therapy can, however, be overcome with adequate information and support to both patient and clinical staff.

Maggot therapy may prove to be a cost effective and useful aid in the management of selected cases of difficult wounds and ulcers. It is also important to consider maggot therapy in individuals in whom antibiotics or surgery are ineffective, associated with high risk, or unavailable. Maggot debridement will be of particular benefit to communities with poor resources, which have endemic, chronic, and intractable wound problems such as those in tropical and developing countries.

GEOFF TOMPKINSON/SPL
Leeches

Another folk remedy handed down through the ages is the use of leeches. The first use of medicinal leeches occurred about 2500 years ago in Egypt, when they were applied to treat all kinds of ailments from headaches to stomach aches. It was thought that leeches would drain "impure blood" from the body, thereby curing illness.8

Leeches belong to a class of legless invertebrates called annelids. Over 650 species of leeches are known. Their multiple curative effects are due to the components of their saliva. Hirudin is the principal anticoagulant in leech saliva. Hirudin is now produced by recombinant DNA technology and is administered to patients undergoing coronary angioplasty and for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. Other properties of this saliva are that it is antithrombotic, thrombolytic, hypotensive, anti-inflammatory, bacteriostatic, and analgesic.9

Medicinal leeches were used for bloodletting and have been applied to congested or inflamed parts of the human body for over 2000 years. Today, leeches are used mostly in plastic and reconstructive surgery. The main indication for their use is for treatment of venous insufficiency in salvageable tissue with intact arterial perfusion. The anticoagulant effect of the secretions produced by leeches helps to relieve venous congestion and improve blood flow to compromised free tissue flaps.10 The procedures in surgery that may benefit from leech therapy include replanted digits after traumatic avulsion or amputation, and compromised skin flaps after successful arterial revascularisation but suffering from venous congestion and haematomas.11 12

In cases of venous congestion where re-establishing the flow of blood is essential, leeches have great therapeutic value because, as they consume their meal of blood, they promote blood flow through the tissue. Even after a leech is full of blood and detaches from the body, the anticoagulants it secretes into the tissue allow the wound to ooze blood for hours afterwards. The oozing promoted by the leech's natural anticoagulants also allows blood to continue flowing through the tissue. Meanwhile, during leech therapy (for example, two per day for a finger replant), which can typically last for up to five days, new veins may grow into the reconstructed region from surrounding healthy tissue and help re-establish adequate blood drainage.9­11

Leeches obviously have their drawbacks, not the least of which is patients' squeamishness about having them attached to their bodies. They can sometimes slip off patients and reattach themselves to other parts of the body not in need of therapy.10 Moreover Leeches are not sterile and can cause bacterial infections mainly due to Aeromonas hydrophila. Leech therapy may also be complicated by excessive blood loss requiring additional treatment.

Don't overlook creepy crawlies

Despite their somewhat unconventional nature, leeches and maggots have been shown to be effective in many different areas of medicine. Perhaps more of us who have been sceptical about such treatments up to now should start regarding them as a serious option.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samena Chaudhry preregistration house officer, Elderly Care, Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham B29 6JD
sxc602@doctors.org.uk Ardeshir Bayat specialistregistrar and research fellow in plastic and reconstructive surgery, South Manchester University Hospitals Trust, Manchester M23 9LT

We thank Steven Thomas, director of the Biosurgical Research Unit, Bridgend, for his
contribution.

Thomas S, Jones M, Shutler S, Andrews A. All
you need to know about maggots. Nursing Times 1996;92:63-6.
Jones M, Thomas S. Larval therapy. Nurs Stand 2000;14:47-51
Knowles A, Findlow A, Jackson N. Management of a diabetic foot ulcer using larval therapy. Nurs Stand 2001;16:73-6.
Thomas S, Jones M, Wynn K, Fowler T. The current status of maggot therapy in wound healing. Br J Nurs 2001;10 (suppl 22):S5-8, S10, S12.
Mumcuoglu KY, Ingber A, Gilead L, Stessman J, Friedmann R, Schulman H, et al. Maggot therapy for the treatment of intractable wounds. Int J Derm 1999,38:623-7.
Coutenay M. The use of larval therapy in wound management in the UK. J Wound Care 1999;8:177-9.
Sherman, RA, Wyle, F, Vulpe, M: Maggot debridement therapy for treating pressure ulcers in spinal cord injury patients. J Spinal Cord Med 1995;18:71-4.
Fields WS. The history of leeching and hirudin. Haemostasis 1991;21 (suppl 1):3-10.
Wallis RB. Hirudins: from leeches to man. Semin Thromb Hemost 1996;22:185-96.
Kocent LC, Spinner SS. Leech therapy: new procedures for an old treatment. Ped Nurs 1992;18:481-3.
Godfrey K. Use of leeches and leech saliva in clinical practice. Nurs Times 1997;93:62-3.
Kraemer BA, Korber KE, Aquino TI, Engleman A. Use of leeches in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a review. Reconstr Microsurg 1988;4:381-6.
Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Respond to this article


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

[ Parent ]

Going About it the Wrong Way (2.25 / 4) (#37)
by thelizman on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 04:09:20 PM EST

There are two ways in which this should be properly handled. The first is to apply pressure to federal agencies to have marijuana reclassed as a medicinal substance. I can buy heroin with a prescription (as a form of laxitive), why not some cannibus?

The second, and in my opinion the most correct, it to apply pressure directly at the congressional level to get a wholesale overhaul of drug policy in which things like marijuana are rightfully recognized as being as dangerous as tobacco. Which is to say a joint a month is okay, a joint a day is dangerous, and a joint every half hour will freakin kill you.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell

difference in opinion (none / 0) (#40)
by lostincali on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 04:16:29 PM EST

While I do support goals such as rescheduling, and a general change in approach to drug policy, I also believe that a move that simply cuts DOJ funding to prosecute medical marijuana use where it complies with state laws is a good first step.

It's something to protect patients right now, while we wait for things like MMJ rescheduling, and, beyond that, serious drug law reform. I find it hard to believe such major changes could come very quickly. Surely countless delays would arise at every point of the process.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

Difference of Opinions (none / 0) (#119)
by thelizman on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 01:13:06 PM EST

So you want to break the system instead of reforming it?

When pencil pushing beauracrats start micromanaging with line-item expenditure allocations, bad things happen.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]

I care more about results than the procedure (none / 0) (#144)
by lostincali on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 05:51:58 PM EST

First, this isn't an administrative/bureaucratic procedure--it's an amendment to a congressional spending bill that would remove DEA/DOJ funding for MMJ busts.

Furthermore , Congress uses little manipulative procedures like this all the time. It's not like the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment would really be doing anything new.

Anyways, I am interested in knowing what results you believe would result from such a procedure. Is it poorer representation or what? Shouldn't Congress be able to tell the bureaucracy exactly what it must do, if it comes down to that?

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

Heroin as a laxative? (none / 1) (#45)
by Sgt York on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 05:04:13 PM EST

If someone prescribes heroin to you as a laxative, I suggest you get a new doctor. FOpiods are anti-diarrheals.

And most of the opioids used in that way are morphine derivitives.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Heroin is a morphine derivative. (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by Polverone on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 05:29:29 PM EST

It's acetylated morphine. The only approved medical use I know of is for pain management in extreme cases, and even that is not allowed in the US. Heroin is Schedule I, just like marijuana.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]
There are other opioids (none / 1) (#57)
by Sgt York on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 06:05:44 PM EST

Codeine and hydrocodone for pain, lomotil for diarrhea, and of course methadone for heroin addiction. But I guess that doesn't really count....

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

A joint every half hour... (none / 1) (#529)
by Bernie Fsckinner on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:58:23 PM EST

----Quote---
Which is to say a joint a month is okay, a joint a day is dangerous, and a joint every half hour will freakin kill you.
----End Quote---

Well, not quite. A joint every half hour will make you wear dreadlocks, give you a serious case of the munchies, and relieve your anxiety over losing your job due to being stoned all the time.

[ Parent ]

Marijuana, other drugs (2.22 / 9) (#48)
by cdguru on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 05:11:36 PM EST

all pretty much lead to the same thing - sitting around in a stupor. I know, plenty of you folks will say "I smoked weed every day for a year and it didn't affect ME, so it must be fine." Many other people do not have your willpower and tolerance.

It is a bit silly the way things are now, because between decriminalizing small amounts and lack of enforcement activity we have pretty much a legal marijuana trade in the US. I know plenty of people that sell or use and sell. We're not getting through to people.

Maybe the answer is open-ended decriminalization. Anything, including Heroin and morphine should be available and at least quasi-legal. If someone does not have the strength of character to pass them up, they are going to be addicted for life. What we do need to do is move these people out of the cities where they can commit crimes on non-drug-addicted people to get money for drugs. We could have comfortable "drug use camps" scattered about the country where people that can't put the joint down or can't keep from shooting up can go. They get all the drugs they want or need there, and the only restriction is they can't leave. Why would they want to, anyway. I think the only sad thing would be we would need to either sterilize these folks or deal with children born in the camps that didn't need or want to be there.

I believe there is a clear decision to be made and the "war on drugs" isn't cutting it. Trying to shut down the source doesn't work either. We seem to be incapable of convincing a substantial fraction of the population that drug use by itself is destructive. So why not open it up?

I do not see it being constructive to tax drugs to support "rehabilitation" or "treatment". These people use drugs because they want to. Trying to put them through some psychological program to convince them this is somehow "wrong" hasn't worked, doesn't work now and is unlikely to work in the future. The threat of serious prison time hasn't worked. I doubt anything will, so let them have their drugs.

oh no, not a stupor! (3.00 / 6) (#56)
by lostincali on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 05:44:48 PM EST

and if all these cancer, AIDS, and MS patients were to just sit around in a stupor all day, well, our society would simply fall apart. Even worse, could you imagine the consequences of someone with anxiety relaxing???


"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

sign me up (none / 1) (#61)
by trane on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 08:17:04 PM EST

for one of the 'drug camps'. you could sterilize me no problem.

[ Parent ]
it's not like that leper colony would be any (none / 0) (#77)
by lostincali on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 01:37:31 AM EST

different from our society.

It would have its own "ghetto" where all the "bad" drug users went. It would have its own suburbs where all the productive users called home.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

what lol (3.00 / 3) (#62)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 08:49:11 PM EST

stimulants don't really tend to lead to "sitting around in a stupor." well, not for a few hours at least.

[ Parent ]
Better high and having an excuse for stupidity (2.75 / 8) (#63)
by D Jade on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 08:52:19 PM EST

You don't even need to take drugs to demonstrate your's.
all pretty much lead to the same thing - sitting around in a stupor. I know, plenty of you folks will say "I smoked weed every day for a year and it didn't affect ME, so it must be fine." Many other people do not have your willpower and tolerance.

It's not always a question of willpower. Heroin addicts are a perfect example where no amount of willpower can help. Many long term addicts cannot just go cold turkey on this drug. The withdrawal symptoms are crippling and cause immense pain or worse, death. Most addicts in such serious situations need weeks and even months of treatement before they can safely discontinue using the drug or any of its supplements (like methadone). People who do more drugs than you or I would logically have a higher tolerance. That's pretty obvious. This is not just a tolerance for a drug, but also a tolerance for people. Something you are clearly lacking. The solution to drug use is not to stop people from taking them. That doesn't solve anything. If you really want people to stop taking drugs, give them something else to do. People don't take drugs because they're bad people; Really, it's attitudes like your's which are bad.

It is a bit silly the way things are now, because between decriminalizing small amounts and lack of enforcement activity we have pretty much a legal marijuana trade in the US. I know plenty of people that sell or use and sell. We're not getting through to people.

Well, it's kind of hard to get through to people when you are wrong or lying to them. The problem with the war on drugs is that it is unfounded. There is no logic and reason to the war on drugs and most of its points are just plain dishonest. The fact of the matter is that the most harmful of drugs are legal. Alcohol kills more people and is responsible for more crime than marijuana. Bar fights, motor accidents, cirhossis. Tobacco comes in second, lung, tongue and throat cancer, emphysema, stroke et cetera. Yet people are educated to believe that marijuana is more harmful. In fact, most drugs are less harmful and if they are enjoyed in moderation, as all drugs should be, there is relatively little or no risk involved. It's much safer than drinking, that's for sure and if any harm is being done, it is most likely to the individual and not someone else (the opposite is true of alcohol).

Maybe the answer is open-ended decriminalization. Anything, including Heroin and morphine ... move these people out of the cities where they can commit crimes on non-drug-addicted people to get money for drugs ... either sterilize these folks or deal with children born in the camps that didn't need or want to be there.

And who said Nazi Germany wasn't alive and well in the United States of America? This is a great attitude my friend. Maybe we should take all of the people who think they know what they are talking about and put them in a concentration camp as well. We can sterilise them, just for laughs because the reality is, they're never going to get laid anyway. I love this attitude that everyone should be like you and if they're not, then get rid of them. The reality is that drug users tend not to commit crimes against the middle-class. They usually commit them in their own neighborhoods, on their own people, who are most likely on or involved in drugs in some way. Besides, middle classed people have this wonderful thing called insurance so it doesn't matter if they get robbed.

I believe there is a clear decision to be made and the "war on drugs" isn't cutting it. Trying to shut down the source doesn't work either. We seem to be incapable of convincing a substantial fraction of the population that drug use by itself is destructive. So why not open it up?

The reality is, people like drugs. Look at the success of Alcohol, Tobacco and Pharmaceuticals. These are the three most lucrative industries in the world.

Drugs are not so destructive, in fact it's the detractors that are destructve. Why should we listen to a group of people who tell us to get straight and take up some good Christian values and fight the war on terror? I mean, you tell me how many wars have been started because of drugs? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen a bunch of drug users going around bombing innocent people, or forming mobs and going around forcing their agendas on others. I haven't seen them cast judgement on people who are different to them. No, it's the straight and narrow that commit the real crimes and cause real destruction.

I do not see it being constructive to tax drugs to support "rehabilitation" or "treatment". These people use drugs because they want to. Trying to put them through some psychological program to convince them this is somehow "wrong" hasn't worked, doesn't work now and is unlikely to work in the future. The threat of serious prison time hasn't worked. I doubt anything will, so let them have their drugs.

Well it's clear from your previous comments that you are a person of great vision. Clearly you have no idea what rehabilitation is. Proper rehabilitation is not about convincing users that drugs are bad. It is about convincing them to accept their addiction and to make the choice to break the habit. If you had ever had any exposure to a good rehabilitation program you would realise that it's more than sitting around talking about the fact that drugs are bad. Drugs are a trap. They snare the unwitting who then follow a downward spiral that causes them to compromise their integrity.

Serious prison time doesn't help either. I mean, firstly, it's an injustice to lock someone away because they are weak. Secondly, it gives an addict more reason not to get help. I mean, if someone overdoses on a drug, they can be arressted. How is that constructive?

Look, it's clear from your statements that you honestly don't know any better. Your attitude is one of intolerance and is typical of the angry mob rule that seems to dominate your United States. I mean, why am I even bothering to respond? It doesn't matter what I say because it's not founded in good Christian values and doesn't preach intolerance.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

very true (2.83 / 6) (#65)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 09:05:20 PM EST

i think yuo have been trolled!?!/1

anyway, i've heard again and again that drugs will ruin my life. what they've really been trying to say is that people will ruin my life if they find out i've been breaking their rules. "drugs" don't have the ability to try to impose their bullshit values on me. people, however, do. i think i'll stick with the one i can trust thxlol.

<3

[ Parent ]
I know I've been trolled (3.00 / 3) (#68)
by D Jade on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 10:42:46 PM EST

But I've got time on my hands and this guy is stupid. I don't mind trolls. But at least they could put forth good arguments :-P

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
no wars huh? (none / 1) (#154)
by minus273 on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 07:46:29 PM EST

" I mean, you tell me how many wars have been started because of drugs? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen a bunch of drug users going around bombing innocent people, or forming mobs and going around forcing their agendas on others. I haven't seen them cast judgement on people who are different to them. No, it's the straight and narrow that commit the real crimes and cause real destruction." I dont normally post on K5 becasue of all the ignorant people here. But this post, this one really takes the cake. Just becase you are ignorant does not mean such things dont exist. The chinese probably wouldn't find your comment too amusing. Have you ever heard of the Opium wars? You have described it to the point. drug users/pushers bombing and killing people forcing them to buy drugs.

[ Parent ]
For fuck's sake (none / 1) (#219)
by Have A Nice Day on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 06:35:32 PM EST

The opium wars were about the colonial powers keeping a monopoly on drug trade, yes they were drug related, but they were not anything to do with people taking drugs, only people selling them. And we don't do trade wars any more, that's why we have embargos.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
yes (none / 1) (#254)
by minus273 on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:48:38 PM EST

the guy said somethign to the ffect of there were no wars fought by people forcing drugs on other people and i showed him that was not the case. The british had nothing to trade so they pushed opium

[ Parent ]
I don't know where you go your order from... (none / 0) (#522)
by DavidTC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:49:54 AM EST

...but as far as I know, tobacco kills about three times as many people as alcohol.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
Have you tried amphetamines? (2.00 / 2) (#92)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:39:22 AM EST

I'd like to see you try to fall into a stupor after a good dose of meth...

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Depends on how much of a dose (3.00 / 2) (#115)
by Sgt York on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 12:41:32 PM EST

and if you qualify coma as a stupor....

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Drugs and crime (3.00 / 4) (#94)
by Peaker on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:42:30 AM EST

What a lot of people miss, is that drugs only lead to crime because they are themselves illegal and expensive. Once they are legal and thus inexpensive, they will lead to crime as much as normal cigarettes do.

[ Parent ]
Decrim is ultimately a mistake (2.33 / 3) (#112)
by Altus on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:51:42 AM EST


the problem with decriminalization is that it increases the market for a drug without regulation... it increases the number of grow-ops (or drug labs, depending on the drug) and keeps the supply and distribution in the hands of criminals.  It does nothing to keep drugs out of the hands of children.

legalization on the otherhand, would move production to well regulated, legal bodies... this can allow for heavy taxation (pot is dirt cheep to produce, literally... and sells for a huge markup now... it could be taxed very heavily) and even quality control.  it eliminates the black market (if done correctly) and allows you to pass laws preventing the sale to minors.

though I favor any relaxation of the drug laws at this point, I do fear that decrim could lead to an increase in crime which  could cause a backlash against legalization (silly yes... but so is the drug war).

 

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

Raich and federalism (2.33 / 3) (#50)
by maniac1860 on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 05:14:36 PM EST

Constitutional Federal laws have always trumped state laws. The only question in Raich was whether the federal law was constitutional. Your aside about how people are being arrested with the state law still stands is completly irrelevant. Federal laws trumping state laws is not even remotely controvesial. What Raich does do is, as Justice Thomas stated, make it constitutional for the federal government to regulate virtually anything. This is a key point, but the other stuff is just garbage.

you're overly harsh (3.00 / 3) (#54)
by lostincali on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 05:35:48 PM EST

I was trying to make this article simple. Perhaps I was a bit unclear.

The issue in Raich was whether the Federal Government, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, had the authority to regulate MMJ.

The 9th Circuit Court ruled that the the federal government did not have that authority. In layman's speak -- the federal law didn't trump state law. The Supreme Court reversed that.

Furthermore, it is relevant that state law still stands, since state authorities enforce state laws. In CA, the atty general has stated that local police forces will continue to enforce California's MMJ laws.

Anyway, I do appreciate the clarifications.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

more specifically (3.00 / 2) (#107)
by aphrael on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:43:57 AM EST

the decision was about whether or not the commerce clause entitled the Congress to regulate *production for personal consumption* of marijuana. The court's majority, citing a 60-somethign year old precedent that the commerce clause entitled the Congress to regulate personal production of wheat, said it did.

[ Parent ]
The flaw in that is (none / 0) (#182)
by benna on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 01:23:05 AM EST

That this really had nothing to do with the state law. In principle, if the supreme court had upheld the 9th circuit, the federal government would be unable to enforce the CSA as applied to homegrown medical marijuana in any state, whether they had legalized it or not. It's purely a question of the constitutionality of a federal law, not whether the federal law userps the state law.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
Yes, but (none / 1) (#307)
by azurensis on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:24:48 PM EST

>Constitutional Federal laws have always trumped state laws.

Only in those areas specifically spelled out in the constitution. What this decision did was remove the last restraint on what laws congress can pass under the 'commerce clause', since it dealt with behavior that was neither interstate nor commerce.

[ Parent ]

Disturbing word roots. (3.00 / 2) (#70)
by Kasreyn on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 11:27:56 PM EST

Sate --> Sativex? Drone --> Dronabinol?

Or am I just wildly paranoid?

Let's just get it over with and call it Soma.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Sativa (3.00 / 11) (#72)
by IHCOYC on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 11:58:04 PM EST

I suspect that "Sativex" was inspired by the Latin name Cannabis sativa, common hemp.

Unfortunately, sativa only means "cultivated" in Latin, in the sense of "planted in agriculture." To the taxologists in charge of binomial nomenclature, it seems to mean "the reg'lar kind that people usually grow." It appears in the scientific names of hundreds of domesticated plants, like rice, Oryza sativa, lettuce, Lactuca sativa, and oats, Avena sativa.

Feel free to use this information to start a rumour that you can get stoned by smoking oatmeal.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit G
[ Parent ]

+1FP hilarious -nt (none / 0) (#78)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:04:18 AM EST

nt
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
American view of medical pot (3.00 / 6) (#80)
by auraslip on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 03:37:58 AM EST

Does it work? I think that is the question we should be asking, because that is what the american is asking.
The answer to that is indeed a tricky one. I think the average american believes that medical pot is just a way to allow a dying person to enjoy their last days, or allow pot to become more legal and easier to use.
So does it work?
Consider "enjoy your last days". A patient sufffering from a terminal disease such as cancer or aids is very prone to depression. It's a wasting illness that slowly stalks up on you. Taking away your will to live. So if weed makes you happy, makes you hungry, makes you restfull, then weed will make your last days much better, and in enjoying life more you will find the will to live. The will to fight the cancer or aids.
Does it work?
124
It does work. (none / 1) (#82)
by Dievs on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 05:55:16 AM EST

For patients undergoing heavy chemoterapy for cancer, the nausea and loss of appetite is not an inconvenience, but a threat to their life, as their already weakened body can't handle it well. Marijuana helps in this case for them to survive the side-effects of this poison-terapy.

The whole point of this debate is that now there finally are clinical studies that show that there IS a medical use for marijuana, while before it was heavily disputed.

[ Parent ]

THC (none / 0) (#170)
by omegadan on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:09:40 AM EST

THC is a "natural" chemical produced by your body, mostly during labor in women. It actually has the effect of inhibiting the *memory of pain*. You can see how important that could be to someone with cancer ...

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
[ Parent ]

This is completly untrue (none / 0) (#179)
by benna on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 01:18:38 AM EST

The body does make endocannibinoids which bind to the same receptors as THC, but not THC itself.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
So then, not completly untrue (NT) (none / 0) (#188)
by Smokin Juan on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 02:49:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]
wrong.. (none / 0) (#214)
by b4b0 on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 04:32:25 PM EST

endocannibinoids != THC
therefore, IT IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
WHORING: http://www.chrakworld.com
[ Parent ]
ahem (none / 0) (#263)
by alevin on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 05:30:04 PM EST

Google Peter McWilliams.
--
alevin
[ Parent ]
Weed cures mental illness?? (3.00 / 4) (#81)
by auraslip on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 03:39:54 AM EST

I usally tell people I can't smoke because it makes me Bipolar. No joke. It makes me mentally unstable.
I don't buy half of this "weed makes you healthy bullshit"
124
Neither do I (2.66 / 3) (#91)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:38:04 AM EST

As a regular user, I know that it has downsides, it makes you quite passive, it usually relaxes you but it can cause quite extreme anxiety attacks from time to time.

Basically if you have even a minor a psychological condition you probably want to stay away from it.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Fine (none / 0) (#96)
by Herring on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:46:09 AM EST

There may be many prescription drugs which do the same thing.

Situations: High blood pressure, well aspirin lowers it. But, if you have anything indicating gastric ulcers (or if you are prone to them) then the doctor will (should) not recommend it.

The whole point is that, in certain patients, this particular drug - when taken in a controlled manner - may be helpful. In some others, it may not. That's why you have qualified and registered doctors. Some drugs are helpful to some people but potentially fatal to others.

To rule out a class of drugs completely because they have bad effects in some people is just silly.

Say lol what again motherfucker, say lol what again, I dare you, no I double dare you
[ Parent ]

Yah (none / 0) (#262)
by alevin on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 05:29:03 PM EST

I have mental illness but I decided to get healthy by quitting drugs and unhealthy eating and it worked. The absence of marijuana was definitely a factor. Kept me healthy for 3-4 months before I relapsed into illness. I've now got 26 months off the pot, and wouldn't go back no matter what. I just love having that amount of time abstained from it. Now if only I had 26 months from cigareettes..
--
alevin
[ Parent ]
re: curing mental illness (none / 0) (#363)
by lostincali on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:57:34 PM EST

advocates claim that marijuana provides symptomatic relief for anxiety and bipolar disorders, not that it cures them. Medical cannabis relieves suffering, which most people agree is a valid use for a medicine.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

The ban on drugs (2.81 / 16) (#89)
by Peaker on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:21:10 AM EST

  • Costs billions
  • Creates an insanely profitable black market based on people's addictions
  • Creates a huge incentive to push these drugs upon people (hidden in drinks, in schools, etc) in order to expand the black market
  • Leads to gang fights over drug zone control in which many innocents and gang members get killed
  • Causes drug prices to be high and require people to become criminals to afford their addictions
  • Protects people from themselves (Some may view this as an advantage, I don't)
  • Most importantly: It fails, miserably.

    Drugs suck, but: Cancel the ban on drugs!

  • Totally agree on all points (n/t) (none / 1) (#224)
    by RubberRetropack on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 07:42:09 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Legalization (none / 1) (#100)
    by bobej on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 10:55:52 AM EST

    The problem with all these medical marijuana arguments is that they are all thinly veiled legalization arguments and everybody knows it. Why not just talk about that directly? If it's a medical argument you really want to make, the correct way to go about it is to perform a good double-blind study, present a cogent scientific argument and get the AMA on your side. THAT would make the mainstream listen, not this mincing subjective "it makes my life better" argument.

    Regarding legalization, I think things aren't too bad just as they are:

  • Pot is almost universally available, yet not ubiquitous.
  • Enforcement in most jurisdictions is lax (possession is usually a lesser crime than say driving under the influence of alcohol) or non-existant (you can openly smoke pot in almost any major city).
  • It's expensive. Which to my mind helps curb dependency.
  • It's counter-cultural. I feel a person SHOULD break a couple little laws in their life, just so the stick doesn't get permanently lodged up their ass.

    Bottom line: The day I see pot getting marketed by suits on Madison Avenue, it's going to make me puke, and I don't even really smoke.

  • Legalisation won't happen (none / 0) (#102)
    by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:02:06 AM EST

    The debate has too many entrenched interests and most of the public are propagandized so much that they think pot makes you kill and rape people, or at the least steal their stuff to seel for more pot. They don't understand.

    I agree that everyone should break a few laws in their time. What I don't agree is that people smoking or growing pot should always have the worry that some propagandised idiot finds out and calls out the law. The consequences are so variable, from a slap on the wrist and confiscation your gear to full on prison time, depending upon the cop and your area. People should not have to risk prison time for a bit of weed. Neither, then, should the people supplying the stuff as they're actually doing a service.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Pot will be legal in the U.S. (none / 1) (#121)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 01:44:12 PM EST

    Within 20 years.  During the Nixon admin it was almost unanimously decriminalized across the nation.  Once our kids grow up, people will realize it's not such a big deal, but at the moment there is a rising backlash from the hyper-conservative 1980's kids growing up and turning 40, stepping into positions of power.

    Those people from the 1980's truly were the worst generation.

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

    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 Nixon wasn't all bad? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Have A Nice Day on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 02:34:22 PM EST

    Lol.

    In the UK I have no idea what's gonna happen. We have a gov't that reclassify it to the same level as minor prescription tranqs and sedatives so you can no longer be arrested for possession, but (suprise!!) it appears more people are using it now so they are thinking about reclassifying it back up again. just weird.

    Hopefully we'll go the right way eventually. If the US does it then it's pretty likely we will too.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Nixon was that bad. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Shajenko on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:29:12 AM EST

    Nixon had a study done to determine the damage that marajuana would do, so that he could use it to pass harsher laws. The report came back saying marajuana was basically harmless. Nixon threw the report away and went ahead with his decision anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Sound's familiar (none / 0) (#217)
    by Have A Nice Day on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 06:30:24 PM EST

    Ssame thing happenbed when the Blairite gov't in the uk comission a study about 5 years ago, they immediately disregarded all the results and did little about it (except mj reclassification, which they are now considering taking away).

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    More or less? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Smokin Juan on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 02:44:59 AM EST

    Wow, seems like I was just reading an article a while back (BBC maybe?) saying that the reclassification has resulted in a warming (as opposed to, you know, cool) status of pot and therefore people were smoking less. So which is it? More or less?

    [ Parent ]
    Less Illegal so more smoke it (none / 0) (#218)
    by Have A Nice Day on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 06:33:03 PM EST

    So the ultra conservatives get their panties more in a twist (even though society as a whole is more and more accepting) and bray louder and louder. They, for some reason, seem to get the ear of the government (probably cos the rest of us are too stoned to speak up) and the gov't reacts by telling us it may have made a mistake with the reclassification.

    Also there's the usual crap about it sending the wrong message to children about drugs. What about sending the wrong message to children about the stupidity of the law???

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Incorrect (none / 0) (#192)
    by overcode on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 04:12:26 AM EST

    I went through chemotherapy a few months ago, and marijuana helped reduce the nausea when most other drugs failed miserably. I really do care about the medical availability of marijuana (not dronabinol/Marinol, that stuff didn't work for me), and I'm not currently advocating full legalization (though I wouldn't mind if it happened).

    -John


    [ Parent ]

    Unenforced laws are bad. (none / 0) (#553)
    by localman on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:27:26 PM EST

    <I>Enforcement in most jurisdictions is lax</I>

    This is a bad thing -- when you have unenforced laws on the books it puts a ton of power into the hands of individual police officers.  What I mean is this: if marijuana is legal, then that's that.  If it's illegal but unenforced then police can pick and choose who to enforce on.  For example, they may choose to arrest black smokers but ignore whites who do the same.  And those police officers are in full control, because the court supports punishing whoever they catch without checking who they don't catch.

    But I strongly agree with dropping the "medical" argument.  Who gives a fuck if it has medical usages?  Why should anything other than violating the rights of others be illegal?

    Cheers.

    [ Parent ]

    Foundation for Federal Law? (none / 1) (#109)
    by redelm on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 11:46:53 AM EST

    I can easily see the SCOTUS deciding that state law cannot override a federal law. Or vice-versa. Whoever has authority , has it. The other cannot take it away. Conflict of laws isn't a pretty thing.

    I deeply question the Federal authority to pass such laws as the FDA. I don't see it in the US Constitution, and I do see residual powers to the states or people. Perhaps the Commerce clause, but then that should not affect in-state activities, nor be such broad prohibitions iso facilitating regulation. Alcohol Prohibition took a US Constitutional amendment to enact. I do not see why drug prohibition or FDA edicts should be any different.



    Re: (none / 0) (#149)
    by lostincali on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 07:01:27 PM EST

    Here is an interesting take on the situation.

    "The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
    [ Parent ]

    It's astounding. Meth and crack... (2.66 / 6) (#138)
    by divinus on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 03:23:36 PM EST


    ...being schedule II drugs, are ruled to be safter, less addictive, and have more medical benefit than marijuana.

    Moreover, what part of Amendment X do federal courts not understand? We are a federalist nation, not a unitary one. Federal laws do not trump state laws, in fact, they rarely overlap in application at all.

    If the federal government wants to apply laws outside of their jurisdiction (interstate trade, international trade, and certain soverign areas (federal courthouses, national parks, etc)), then they can do it the old fashioned way: threaten to withhold block grants from states that do not legislate their bidding on the appropriate (state) level. That's how they finally got the standardisation of tobacco and alcohol ages, which of course aren't illegal because they are completely unaddictive, safe, and have a wealth of medical benefit.

    More doctors smoke Camels.

    What about Amendment X? (none / 0) (#209)
    by joedecker on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 12:50:02 PM EST

    Moreover, what part of Amendment X do federal courts not understand? We are a federalist nation, not a unitary one.

    USSC rests their argument here on a long-established precedent of suggesting that anything that even comes close to anything involved with commerce is protected by the ICC clause of the Consitution (See Article I, Section 8.)

    I'd agree the precedent is crazy, but it seems to me that there's another thing they've missed here too--if Amendment IX doesn't suggest that the courts can find unenumerated human rights in the future, what is it there for? If the right to persue reasonable, scientifically-based health-care needs isn't a fundamental human right, what is?

    Of course this argument ends up with a different result, not giving the question to the states, but establishing a national legalization (at least for medical use).
    --- There's no such thing as too much film. --Joe Decker
    [ Parent ]

    the ICC... (none / 1) (#223)
    by divinus on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 07:05:30 PM EST

    Is probably the most abused thing ever. If they want to restrict importation of marijuana into states that allow it, then fine. Otherwise, I don't think they can do anything about intrastate commerce.

    [ Parent ]
    schedule IV (mj) is less restrictive then.. (none / 0) (#213)
    by b4b0 on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 04:22:11 PM EST

    schedule II. Dangerous habit forming drugs?
    WHORING: http://www.chrakworld.com
    [ Parent ]
    No, MJ is a SCHEDULE I drug (none / 1) (#215)
    by morewhine on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 04:34:22 PM EST

    Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug in the United States.  Please get your facts right.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (none / 0) (#266)
    by evanbd on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 10:34:13 PM EST

    I don't think cocaine and crack are distinguished under the CSA.  And cocaine has uses as a topical anaesthetic (it's a very very good one), sometimes used in eye surgery.  Or at least it used to be; probably isn't any more.

    And the amphetamies have uses -- see Ritalin, Adderall, Dexedrine, Benzedrine, Concerta, Focalyn, and others used for ADD treatment and as anorexics.  I believe meth is occasionally also prescribed under some circumstances.

    So it would seem that schedule II for both those is consistent with the definitions -- potential for abuse, but recognized medical uses.

    Schedule I for MJ, though, is just plain weird...  sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    rofl@"anorexics" (3.00 / 2) (#557)
    by Linux or FreeBSD on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 10:16:34 AM EST

    anorectics.

    [ Parent ]
    Does anyone else think... (2.40 / 5) (#139)
    by parrillada on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 03:41:28 PM EST

    ...it is hilarious that Dronabinol is legal by prescription, while marijuana is illegal? Doesn't this make it blatantly obvious that this is a culture war? Apparently it is the culture of smoking marijuana that is prohibited, not the drug itself.

    one government argument re: this (none / 0) (#147)
    by lostincali on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 06:45:22 PM EST

    Is that modern medicine relies on an isolated compound to provide relief. A "whole plant" medicine is considered to be crude and ineffective. It's considered "unscientific." Something us moderns just don't reduce ourselves to.

    IMO, that position is a bunch of crap, but it is a good argument in that it's convincing to a lot of people.

    "The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
    [ Parent ]

    Not at all. (none / 0) (#273)
    by I HATE TROLLS on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:13:50 AM EST

    Morphine is a legal medicine, but it's illegal to buy from a dealer too. The medical profession is given access to substances that the general population is not, there's nothing new about this whatsoever.

    [ Parent ]
    Thats not the point (none / 0) (#281)
    by benna on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:47:57 AM EST

    You can't get pot from a pharmacy either (under federal law).
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention (2.50 / 6) (#142)
    by jtrask on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 04:55:00 PM EST

    Even people who are pro-medicinal marijuana only talk about the big ailments - AIDS, cancer, ... In reality, it's useful for a huge number of day-to-day problems. One night I took what I suppose one would call an overdose on caffeine pills (as I don't think you can actually take enough to die). I was needless to say very ill the next day, and, sick of the misery of it, smoked a joint. Lo and behold, I actually went from throwing up every ten minutes to a slightly stoned "normal". It's not the nausea that cancer meds give you. It's just nausea.

    Well, there's a big gap between audiences (none / 1) (#148)
    by lostincali on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 06:51:48 PM EST

    On one side, there are people like you and I who realize that marijuana is quite effective at providing relief for everyday things like an upset stomach or tenseness after a stressful day.

    On the other side, there are people who think it turns you into some kind of murderous zombie. Because of them, I think it's a good strategy to get them around to the idea of helping AIDS and cancer patients first, realizing that the medicine isn't so bad, and moving from there.

    "The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
    [ Parent ]

    Caffeine overdose (3.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Magnetic North on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 04:41:39 AM EST

    Lethal dose of caffeine in humans is about 200 mg/kg. You're not likely to overdose by drinking fluids containing caffeine, but if you're taking pills then you have to be careful. Even if you stay well below the letal dose, there's always the risk of caffeine induced psychosis, especially in combination with little or no sleep.

    If your daily dosage of caffeine is about 200-300 mg then you risk caffeine intoxication with lots of unpleasant symptoms.

    But yeah, if I've had too much coffee during the day, it's always good to counter the effects with a couple of puffs before going to bed.

    --
    <33333
    [ Parent ]
    Sent myself to hospital on too much coffee once (none / 0) (#216)
    by Have A Nice Day on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 06:26:49 PM EST

    Don't much like to talk about the circumstsance, but they put me on a drip. I rock.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Pot smoking should be illegal (1.00 / 14) (#163)
    by sellison on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 08:49:43 PM EST

    we're going to have to make it a federal crime to not enforce it, and over ride these hippie states free pot laws.

    These poor sick people should be using FDA approved medicine for their problems, not some dope some dirty hippie grew in his closet!

    Any doctor who prescribes this modern snake oil should lose his license immediatly and be thrown in federal prison.

    Hippies, you should be wary, this drug abuse will not be legal for long, and when we get things under control at the federal level, the FBI will be coming for your little gardens, and hauling you off to federal prison they wil be!

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

    i wnat you to explain to me (none / 0) (#186)
    by circletimessquare on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 02:44:46 AM EST

    why alcohol is legal and marijuana is not

    cocaine/ meth/ heroin: evil, evil drugs never to be legalized

    that's where i am coming from

    now explain to someone like me why marijuana is illegal when alcohol is legal in terms that i can understand


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

    [ Parent ]

    Because marijuana was a "black" drug (none / 0) (#227)
    by der on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 11:06:27 PM EST

    The reason is racism. Same situation for opium and Chinese immigrants. Go America!

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, (none / 0) (#257)
    by Shajenko on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 03:56:31 PM EST

    Marajuana was a "Mexican" drug, in popular opinion. Cocaine was the "black" drug.

    [ Parent ]
    Er, you're right. My bad. n/t (none / 0) (#270)
    by der on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 11:35:42 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    meth is quite legal, and a children's medicine too (none / 0) (#231)
    by catmatic on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 03:27:37 AM EST

    http://www.psyweb.com/Drughtm/desoxyn.html

    Methamphetamine ( Desoxyn ) an amphetamine used to treat narcolepsy and attention-deficit-disorder in children. In some cases but rare this drug is used to treat depression. This drug is from a family of drugs known as central nervous system stimulants.

    [ Parent ]
    The troll above was much better than this one (none / 0) (#237)
    by HyperMediocrity on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 05:18:43 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    "Medical Marijuana" is a scam (1.45 / 11) (#228)
    by Frank Anderson on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 01:09:00 AM EST

    The concept of "Medical Marijuana" is a vile, dishonest attempt to exploit the victims of awful diseases to push a drug agenda. The driving forces behind "Medical Marijuana" are marijuana addicts and pushers, not doctors. Read the comments of Dr. Janet Lapey. Doctors have many legal drugs available that work better than "pot" and have less harmful side effects.
    A key figure behind California's disgraceful "Medical Marijuana" law is Dennis Peron - a convicted drug dealer who claims that "All use of marijuana for some reason, even if it's as small as stress or anxiety, is a medical reason." And among the medical reasons Peron accepts is "recovering lost memories."
    The intention of the "Medical Marijuana" crowd is twofold: first, to sell and consume marijuana widely, claiming "medical" reasons for each use - second, to legitimize marijuana and prepare the public for eventual legalization.
    That would truly be a tragedy. Although studies of marijuana have been limited, we know that THC promotes tumor growth, marijuana vastly increases rates of schizophrenia, and marijuana is already the leading cause of drug-related emergency room admissions.
    Marijuana users will bend and twist the truth to justify their continued drug use. They would do better to accept that they have a serious problem and seek help.

    Um (none / 1) (#230)
    by trhurler on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 03:09:27 AM EST

    Are you a troll, or just stupid? I don't use anything illegal for various reasons related to my day job, but in any case, marijuana is substantially safer than alcohol. It is less toxic(although perhaps not when smoked,) in both the immediate sense(just try and OD on it,) and the longer term sense(every study that's been done by government funded researchers showing the "horrible effects" has still not shown anything as bad as cirrhosis, cancer, and so on, and the honest studies done under legitimate circumstances show much less harm than that.) It does impair judgement, but not as much as alcohol does. It does slow reflexes, but again, not as much as alcohol does. It does cause you to go on crazy hang gliding wild goose chases after White Castles, but at least you won't be drunk while you're doing it. And so on.

    In short, it sounds like you have no idea what you're on about.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    You have not addressed the point (2.33 / 3) (#235)
    by Frank Anderson on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 04:11:11 AM EST

    You haven't disputed any of my facts, and it doesn't sound like you bothered reading any of my links. The negative facts about marijuana are easily accessible, but it's "cool" to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's OK.
    My main point is that "Medical Marijuana" is a scam, a cover for recreational marijuana. And your main response is to claim that marijuana is "less harmful" than alcohol. Well, doctors don't often prescribe alcohol. Far from validating "Medical Marijuana", your comparison highlights the recreational character of this drug.
    I realize the internet groupthink is that "pot is harmless, and the evil government has irrationally banned it." Since I'm contradicting that groupthink, I must be trolling or stupid.

    [ Parent ]
    Three things (3.00 / 2) (#236)
    by trhurler on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 04:20:11 AM EST

    First of all, if it is less harmful than alcohol, then maybe it ought to be legal.

    Second, yes, I know the medical marijuana movement is largely spearheaded by people with an agenda. So is every other political movement. Would you therefore say that nothing should ever be done becuase someone involved will have a shoddy motive in doing it? If not, then what do you have to say to the literally tens or hundreds of thousands of people who actually do find relief from symptoms than in many cases are so bad you probably can't even imagine them using marijuana?

    Third: nobody cares about your links. At the same level of reliability as the claims about causing tumors to grow, one can also "prove" that power lines cause cancer. They don't, of course. Aspirin probably causes more cancer than marijuana does.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    You posted at 4:20 (none / 0) (#261)
    by llortking on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 05:05:19 PM EST

    huh huh huh huh huh cool.

    [ Parent ]
    you could really use some medical cannabis (none / 1) (#232)
    by catmatic on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 03:34:11 AM EST

    Obviously you are stressed and anxious about things you don't understand. A couple of nice big bongloads would probably have you feeling a lot nicer.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks for the fine example (3.00 / 3) (#242)
    by fhotg on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 09:48:49 AM EST

    about how marihuana causes psychosis and alientation from reality --- for people who don't use it.
    ~~~
    Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

    [ Parent ]
    You forgot PARANOIA [nt] (none / 0) (#539)
    by CaptainZapp on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 06:36:17 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    face it... (3.00 / 2) (#244)
    by mikelist on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 10:19:55 AM EST

    ..., there are many individuals who self medicate with various drugs, both legal and otherwise. Oddly, the two most statistically dangerous commonly used drugs are legal, while the drug with the least proven toxicity is scheduled higher (more dangerous) than ecstasy or methamphetamine, which are proven to be very harmful or fatal to at least certain people. This suggests an agenda of sorts by anti-drug groups that is irrational, unlike the hidden agenda you claim exists for medical mj supporters. Very few are suggesting that mj should be made easily accessible to the general population, there is little or no support among such groups for legalization of other drugs (although sincerely concerned mmj supporters may also take issue with the medical heroin ban). A realistic look at cannibis' value as well as potential for damage is badly needed.

    [ Parent ]
    Half-truths ... (none / 0) (#309)
    by ab762 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:46:06 PM EST

    >Doctors have many legal drugs available that work better than "pot" and have less harmful side effects.

    One of the advantages of marijuana in treating nausea from chemotherapy is that it's not a pill - you don't need to keep it down. There aren't a lot of non-pill drugs. The article references Sativex, an aerosolized but non-smoked form.

    Certainly the downside of marijuana is the side effects of smoking it - inhaling burning plant matter just isn't a good thing.
    --
    Some dumb Canadian
    [ Parent ]

    no need to smoke (none / 0) (#313)
    by catmatic on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:10:36 PM EST

    There are many quality vaporizors on the market, and cannabis can, of course, be eaten for full effect.

    [ Parent ]
    Uuh, have you ever been through chemotherapy? (none / 1) (#348)
    by overcode on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:30:22 PM EST

    When you're nauseous for weeks at a time, the drugs you've been prescribed don't make you feel any better, and marijuana provides a little temporary relief from the pain, you might begin to take a different view of medical marijuana.

    I told my doctor I was using it, and he thought it was a good idea. Marijuana offers relaxation, relieves nausea, and improves the appetite, all of which are helpful to someone recovering from chemotherapy.

    They always say that today's anti-nausea drugs are so great and make chemo patients so much more comfortable. I found that to simply not be true. My aunt, who also went through chemotherapy a while back, had the same experience.

    Like any drug, it can be abused. But between the cisplatin, vinblastine, dacarbazine, interferon-a, interleukin-2, lorazepam, meperidine, prochlorperazine, and laundry list of other drugs I had to take during chemo, marijuana was about at the bottom of the list for toxicity and addictiveness. (I'm far more worried about the narcotics they hand out like candy.)

    Some people may improperly use medical marijuana as an argument for full legalization, but some of us are legitimately concerned about getting the drugs we need to treat our medical problems.

    Why shouldn't a licensed medical doctor have the right to make this decision?

    [ Parent ]

    No it's not (none / 1) (#528)
    by DavidTC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:46:14 PM EST

    marijuana is already the leading cause of drug-related emergency room admissions.

    No it's not. Alcohol is, by far.

    And, yes, I've worked in a damn emergency room. Not long, about 30 hours as a registrar before I decided that enviroment wasn't for me(1), but long enough to twice see injured people have cops hovering outside the room because there were 'questions' they wanted to ask those people about the car crashes they were in, and both those times it was alcohol, not illegal drugs.

    Oh, wait, this is one of those 'anyone who tests positive for pot is included' statistics, right? Yes, with something like 1/10th the population using pot, logically, something like 1/10th the population of emergency rooms should be using pot.

    Did you know that 100% of drink-related emergency room admissions are for water? It's true, almost everyone who's admitted to the hospital has drank water in the last 24 hours.

    'Drug-related emergency room admissions' is possibly the fucking stupid statistic I've ever seen. Do you know what causes the most drug-related hospital admissions? Tobacco is in the lead by one hundred thousand percent! (2) It's just that people with lung cancer don't go to the emergency room.

    1) The topper: Standing around outside the trauma room to see if they can put this guy back together enough so he can answer what his name is and if he has health insurance. It's one of those jobs that rationally makes sense and is needed, but you really feel like crap when you do it. Hi, you've just been seriously injured, where would you like to send us the bill? Oh, look, that guy died before we could ask him, ah well, they'll sort it out in the morgue.

    2) No, that's not an exaggeration. It kills almost 100 times as many people as illegal drugs, and considering it kills them with lung cancer and heart disease, it's not unreasonable to assume they make at least ten visits to the hospital before dying. Whereas people on illegal drugs rarely end up in the hospital at all.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Not a complete disagreement (none / 0) (#530)
    by Sgt York on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:44:22 PM EST

    First, I'd like to say MJ is certainly not as bad as it is made out to be. And the grandparent is talking out of his ass re:ER admissions. As far as drugs go, it's pretty damn safe. The number one problem it causes (prevelance wise) is impaired judgement.

    However, you can't safely compare it to alcohol, as that the use profile of MJ is drastically different from alcohol. Very few people smoke enough pot to get stoned every other day for 20 years. The same thing can be said about comparing tobacco to MJ. Ever hear of a 2-pack a day pot smoker? This all speaks to prevelance of use, not just hazard of the substance.

    I agree with most of what you said but the comment "people on illegal drugs rarely end up in the hospital at all" is not true at all. I worked in two different hospitals for about 3 years as a volunteer. I currently teach at a nursing school, and work in a medical school building. I've seen plenty of illegal drug users come into the hospital for conditions directly or indirectly caused by drug use. A lot of the time it's due to self-neglect brought on by addiction, but we also see frequent OD's, heart complications, mental disorders, nervous disorders, wrecked GI systems, and messed up circulatory systems, to name a few. This doesn't even include the people that get HIV from sharing needles (which really pisses me off...we have needle exchange programs all over the city, and they are glutted with clean needles. Many will give you 3 or 4 needles for turning in one, just to be sure. But we still get needle transmission of HIV, Hep, etc in drug users.)

    The "hard" drugs really are bad. Heroin is among the most addictive substances in the world. Cocaine and meth can royally fuck your heart/CV system over. But MJ is relatively harmless, around the same threat as alcohol. It really doesn't make much sense to ban it.

    There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I'll admit I was being silly. (none / 0) (#543)
    by DavidTC on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:52:10 AM EST

    Of course drug users end up in hospitals. Probably at least 25% more than other folks. Of course, a lot of that is due to the general and unrelated poor health of drug users, but a lot of it is due to the drugs.

    And, of course, there's people sent to the hospital for treatment, which I don't consider 'a drug-related hospital visit'...it's drug related, but it's not any sort of injury or disease.

    The 'drug mostly to put you in emergency room is pot' fake statistic just pissed me off. It's alcohol because of accidents/fights/stupid behavior, and then, it's alcohol because of alcohol poisoning as a distance second! Pot is probably below 'hitting yourself on the thumb with a hammer'.

    Other drugs can get you there, too, though. Of course, a lot of that is due to bad dosages.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    "A leading" vs "The leading" (none / 0) (#548)
    by Frank Anderson on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 12:20:28 AM EST

    marijuana is already the leading cause of drug-related emergency room admissions.
    No it's not. Alcohol is, by far
    I got that quote here, but far more pages are calling it a leading source.
    I don't think the difference is enough to let pot off the hook. It is a harmful substance, strongly tied to adverse health conditions, hard drug use, and crime. I hope your service in the Emergency Room did not lead you to think that using Marijuana is OK. It's not - it's illegal and harmful.

    [ Parent ]
    You can't be serious (none / 0) (#549)
    by benna on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 02:06:36 AM EST

    You are citing DARE?
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    That's a DARE page. (none / 0) (#550)
    by DavidTC on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 01:24:39 PM EST

    DARE lies.

    But, anyway, marijuana is not 'a' leading cause of drug-related emergency room admissions by any sane definination.

    Alcohol causes almost all drug-related emergency room visits. Oh, that doesn't count as a drug? Or does it not count because the results are due to injury, not the actual drug?

    Well actual, legal drugs cause almost all drug-related emergency room admissions, after you remove alcohol.

    By far more people get admitted for overdosing on aspirin or reactions between medication. (Adverse drug reactions to legal drugs are like the tenth most popular cause of death, and almost all of them end up in the emergency room first.)

    Well, maybe you're talking about only illegal drug-related emergency room admissions. Sorry, no, still wrong. That's heroin or crack/cocaine, depending where you are. Then the other one.

    In some places, meth leaps from behind to take the lead, but in most places it's a distance third. Or PCP, or whatever the local drug of choice.

    Then we have MDMA and marijuana, tied for last.

    So if you specifically change that to 'a top-ten cause of illegal drug-related emergency room visits', yes. Of course, there are less than ten drugs commonly used...

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    And... (none / 0) (#546)
    by JohnLamar on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 08:11:00 PM EST

    What about Alcohol?

    Were is the justification in keeping that legal?

    I assume that you work for Busch or Coors with that attitude...
    The worst thing you've ever seen
    [ Parent ]

    Oh, shut up (2.00 / 3) (#233)
    by trhurler on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 03:37:19 AM EST

    Federal law DOES trump state law. What has to be argued is not that it doesn't(that's ridiculous,) but that the interstate commerce justification of federal drug law is nonsense in this case(which the court doesn't want to hear mainly because it is afraid to upset the applecart.) Since the courts don't want to hear that, probably you need political action. Sadly for you, most Americans are still hypocritical self righteous pricks, just like the rest of the world.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    don't tell me to shut up, you shut up (none / 0) (#364)
    by lostincali on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:02:26 AM EST

    This has already been addressed in another comment below. Yes, I made a misleading oversimplification. You're right, and I've already admitted my mistake. Luckily, K5 allows for discussion and clarification. In summary, get over it OK?


    "The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
    [ Parent ]

    CircleTimesSquare = Playstation logo (none / 1) (#525)
    by Bernie Fsckinner on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:22:56 PM EST

    Good name choice for a troll. He's playing games with your mind =)

    i dropped the clusterfuck bomb (none / 0) (#537)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 08:39:13 PM EST

    you press A-B-A-Bx2 on your control pad, but only if your energy bar is high enough

    BOOM

    super troll power magnetize!

    "heroin is highly addictive"

    "huh?" RETARDS ENERGIZED

    ATTRACT AND EVISCERATE THEM

    teehee ;-)

    too much fun


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

    [ Parent ]

    Raich and the Future of Medicinal Marijuana | 557 comments (512 topical, 45 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!