Universal Truths

[Blazkowicz]

What's written in the text actually feels like good reason to NOT do psychedelics.

There are good things in my cultural laid down models of behavior and information processing : they opened up to me the possibility that everything I know is wrong. Socrates "I know that I know nothing", Descartes autistic ramblings (that include early on that the whole world could be fake), even Yoda who said you have learnt a lot, now you have to unlearn what to know (a probable cheap plagiarizing of whoever says this already).
I'm also well aware that the process of perceiving your surrounding and that of hallucinating are not so much different, actually the very same thing. Am I hallucinating that broomstick over there? It's actually just pieces of wood and hair strung together. How is it so that just by looking at it my brain is sort of feeding nerve impulses to my virtual arms about how to operate it, even though I'm not actually executing these moves nor even standing next to it.

I'm hallucinating damn well enough already, last thing I want is to get stuck on some "conscience plane" or "perception plane" because of taking a badly calibrated dose of LSD ersartz.
Besides, marijuana gives you lung or throat cancer.

 

[KimB]

Besides, marijuana gives you lung or throat cancer.

Actually, no, it doesn't. Marijuana smoking, even heavy marijuana smoking, is not associated with any increase in cancer risk. The only negative health effects of marijuana smoking that seem to hold up is that there may be some exacerbation of certain mental disorders, such as schizophrenia.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

"the possibility that everything you know is wrong" is not such a good thing. Phychedelics + dumbfucks = people who think that plugging an extension cord into itself can produce free energy. Perhaps some of those drugs can broaden the horizon for some people and make them create great things, but I don't think they can turn an idiot in to genius.

 

[KimB]

We are in area where everyone can share his opinion. So, please, be so kind and respect it. Grall.

Expansion of Consciousness. DMT: The Spirit Molecule

Actually, psychedelics are illegal because of racism. Basically, the acceptable drugs (alcohol and cigarettes) were popular among white Americans.

Many black Americans in the early 20th century were using cocaine, for instance, in part because shipping companies used cocaine to make their black dock workers work longer and harder. Then came the scare campaigns that said that black men on cocaine would kill white men and rape white women, and so it was made illegal.

 

[Blazkowicz]

But how come alcohol + cigarettes are pretty much the default legal drugs worldwide, except in a few islamic countries where alcohol is banned?

You can probably say something about the US exporting its laws.
But alcohol, you simply can't get rid of it, it's extremely ancient, everyone has brewed/distilled/wined, it's cultural and in a too deep way (getting rid of fighting bulls in an arena is/was not easy and it's nothing next to banning alcohol). The way you consume it even, you mistake it for feeding you.
Tobacco, it seems relatively harmless and not mind altering, is extremely addictive and is cheap, getting rid of it would be a better idea but again it's too hard. Makes you enjoy the breath of fumes and exploit your nipple-sucking reflex.
You've left out coffee (which is one thing I'm not addicted to, at least).

 

[KimB]

But how come alcohol + cigarettes are pretty much the default legal drugs worldwide, except in a few islamic countries where alcohol is banned?

You can probably say something about the US exporting its laws.

There may be a component of that. My understanding is that cigarettes primarily became popular in Europe after World War 2, as American soldiers often gave cigarettes to people there.

I think the main thing is that the illegal drugs simply weren't popular among white Americans, which allowed the morality scolds to ban them. And they exploited the fact that most of America was very racist, and that the people these drugs were popular with tended to be minorities.

You've left out coffee (which is one thing I'm not addicted to, at least).

That is true, caffeine is another drug that is quite freely-available. I guess I don't usually mention it because it's so safe. Alcohol and cigarettes are the two most unsafe recreational drugs in existence. And yet we tolerate their use.

As for me, well, I think it's patently absurd that we legislate what people can and cannot do to their own bodies.

 

[Grall]

As for me, well, I think it's patently absurd that we legislate what people can and cannot do to their own bodies.

This is a common canard. Most drug use affects more than just your own body, either directly (such as cigarette smoke, which pollutes huge air volumes around you with toxic, cancerous aerosol), or impacts people indirectly, say your family members when a father or mother cannot properly provide for their spouse and children anymore, or a child getting mired in an addiction and so on.

Not to mention those assholes who get drunk, high or both, get behind the wheel and then run into people and/or other vehicles.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Actually, no, it doesn't. Marijuana smoking, even heavy marijuana smoking, is not associated with any increase in cancer risk. The only negative health effects of marijuana smoking that seem to hold up is that there may be some exacerbation of certain mental disorders, such as schizophrenia.

I have trouble understanding how the smoke and tars from cigarettes will fuck you up, pollution from coal will fuck you up, even standing next to wood fires everyday will probably fuck you up but your lungs are safe from marihuana's hot smoke and tars for a reason.

 

[KimB]

This is a common canard.

And why, pray tell, do you think that we shouldn't legislate laws for responsible use of drugs that impact other people? Such as DUI laws?

The fact that there is sometimes irresponsible use of drugs is not a valid argument for banning them.

 

[KimB]

I have trouble understanding how the smoke and tars from cigarettes will fuck you up, pollution from coal will fuck you up, even standing next to wood fires everyday will probably fuck you up but your lungs are safe from marihuana's hot smoke and tars for a reason.

I don't know the answer to that. I do find it interesting. I guess it comes down to the difference in chemicals between the two smokes.

Though I don't think sitting by wood fires has been linked with lung cancer. Smoke inhalation causes other respiratory issues.

Edit: Actually, looking around, it sounds like marijuana does contain many of the same carcinogens as tobacco. However, studies have yet to find any noticeable increase in cancer risk from marijuana use. One potential issue mentioned is that it's difficult to get a large enough sample size for heavy smokers. But it is quite clear from the data available that the risk is far lower than from cigarettes, at the very least. One hypothesis that might explain this is that marijuana contains many anti-cancer chemicals as well, including THC. Those may counterbalance the impact of the carcinogens. By contrast, nicotine actually accelerates the growth of tumors.

 

[Grall]

And why, pray tell, do you think that we shouldn't legislate laws for responsible use of drugs that impact other people? Such as DUI laws?

I didn't say we shouldn't have laws against that. Quite the opposite, I think DUI laws are way too lax for the most part. I'm thinking some fucking sharia-strength laws might be in order to curb DUI, but I am sane enough to know that's not really realistic.

The fact that there is sometimes irresponsible use of drugs is not a valid argument for banning them.

Actually, I think that's a great reason, considering these drugs have no other purpose than to fuck with your brain (and most of the time get you addicted to it as well at the same time.)

I don't buy any reasoning along the lines of, "people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves", I think that's complete and utter bullshit. That's how a psychopath reasons. Meanwhile in the real world, many people on drugs lose their jobs and homes, commit crimes to finance their habits and bog down hospitals and mental health clinics with all the side-effects caused by drug use. Not to mention the jails.

...And the broken families that result as well. Drug use is not an issue of personal freedom. You want personal freedom, fuck off to Mars. In a society you have to adjust yourself, for many reasons and on many levels.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Netherlands seems to do fine, although that doesn't guarantee that other cultures could adapt as well, just that it can work.

 

[Davros]

And we all know prohibition doesnt create a powerful criminal underclass

 

[zed]

Actually, no, it doesn't. Marijuana smoking, even heavy marijuana smoking, is not associated with any increase in cancer risk. The only negative health effects of marijuana smoking that seem to hold up is that there may be some exacerbation of certain mental disorders, such as schizophrenia.

I believe this is wrong.

Personally Im for the legalization of marijuana and all other drugs

 

[Tahir2]

As for me, well, I think it's patently absurd that we legislate what people can and cannot do to their own bodies.

If only these people (who consume drugs or other mind/judgement/health altering substances and or liquids) lived in a vacuum on their own island somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

Chalnoth, have you ever lived and taken care of someone who had an addiction to drugs such as heroin?

 

[KimB]

Actually, I think that's a great reason, considering these drugs have no other purpose than to fuck with your brain (and most of the time get you addicted to it as well at the same time.)

Except now we get to the practical issues:
Drug use doesn't appear to be strongly correlated (and may even be somewhat negatively-correlated) with legality. Furthermore, it becomes far easier to regulate how and when people use drugs when it is legal to use them.

I don't buy any reasoning along the lines of, "people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves", I think that's complete and utter bullshit. That's how a psychopath reasons.

Well, no. A psychopath reasons that they should be able to do whatever they want to other people. The difference couldn't be more stark.

Meanwhile in the real world, many people on drugs lose their jobs and homes, commit crimes to finance their habits and bog down hospitals and mental health clinics with all the side-effects caused by drug use.

All of which will be reduced by making the drugs legal, and what negative effects there are can further be mitigated by using taxes on the drugs to fund rehabilitation clinics and the like.

Not to mention the jails.

What do you mean, not to mention the jails? Do you somehow think that it would be a bad thing to lock fewer people up?

...And the broken families that result as well.

The broken families are primarily a result of the draconian drug laws, not the drugs themselves.

 

[Davros]

Chalnoth, have you ever lived and taken care of someone who had an addiction to drugs such as heroin?

And if they could of obtained their drugs legally (but controlled) and cheaply wouldnt his/her and your lives of been better (no money problems, no need to commit crime)

 

[KimB]

If only these people (who consume drugs or other mind/judgement/health altering substances and or liquids) lived in a vacuum on their own island somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

Chalnoth, have you ever lived and taken care of someone who had an addiction to drugs such as heroin?

No, but neither does that have anything at all to do with my point. With the drugs not being legal, it becomes possible for society to provide a safety net for people with serious addictions, rather than just throwing them in jail or forcing them to be a burden on their loved ones.

The fact remains that if the harm caused by drugs had anything at all to do with their legality, LSD would be legal while cigarettes and tobacco would be quite illegal.

 

[UniversalTruth]

Teacher suspended after collection of half-clothed pictures are shared on Twitter

To me she looks more like a porn actress than a normal teacher to be respected by her students.

 

[KimB]

Teacher suspended after collection of half-clothed pictures are shared on Twitter

To me she looks more like a porn actress than a normal teacher to be respected by her students.

What, normal teachers are ugly? What is your problem?