 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4c50ac45$1@news.povray.org...
>A little rabbit is running happily through the forest when he stumbles upon
>a giraffe rolling a joint.
>
> The rabbit looks at the giraffe and says, "Giraffe my friend, why do you
> do this? Come. Run with me through the forest! You'll feel so much
> better!"
>
> The giraffe looks at him, looks at the joint, tosses it and goes off
> running with the rabbit. Then they come across an elephant doing coke.
>
> So the rabbit again says, "Elephant my friend, why do you do this? Think
> about your health. Come. Run with us through the pretty forest, you'll
> see, you'll feel so good!"
>
> The elephant looks at them, looks at his razor, mirror and coke, then
> tosses them and starts running with the rabbit and giraffe. The three
> animals then come across a lion about to shoot up.
>
> "Lion my friend, why do you do this? Think about your health! Come. Run
> with us through the beautiful forest and you'll feel so good!" The lion
> looks at him, puts down his needle, and mauls the rabbit.
>
> The giraffe and elephant watch in horror and look at him and ask, "Lion,
> why did you do this? He was merely trying to help you."
>
> The lion answers, "That little bastard! He makes me run around the forest
> like a f'ing idiot every time he's on ecstasy!"
LOL!
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/07/2010 5:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yep. Making them legal doesn't mean make then uncontrolled. Today if I
> want to buy cough syrup with codeine in it, I have to provide information
> to the pharmacy (even for stuff that used to be over the counter) because
> large quantities of codeine can be used to make crystal meth.
>
> That's a perfectly reasonable control.
>
Yes, my doctor has given me a prescription for 200 paracetamol. Not that
they can be used for recreation purposes but so a pharmacist will sell
them to me in that quantity. Because of the danger of overdose
pharmacists can only sell about 30 at a time to one person.
>> BTW Just a minute starts on Monday
>
> :-)
>
My pleasure.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/07/2010 9:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as caffeine.
Caffeine is quite addictive and a lot of people are addicted but it is
easy to withdraw from.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:56:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/07/2010 9:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as caffeine.
>
> Caffeine is quite addictive and a lot of people are addicted but it is
> easy to withdraw from.
Indeed, though I think it was Patrick who said that, not I. ;-)
I've had caffeine addiction before, but like you said, it's pretty easy
to withdraw from. I sometimes go months without any and then it's time
for a Coke. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:49:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> Yes, my doctor has given me a prescription for 200 paracetamol. Not that
> they can be used for recreation purposes but so a pharmacist will sell
> them to me in that quantity. Because of the danger of overdose
> pharmacists can only sell about 30 at a time to one person.
Yeah, I know it's similar here for larger doses of Tylenol.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/25/2010 12:53 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've heard of drugs that give you energy, make you calm, numb pain or
> make you see plastercine porters with looking-glass ties. But I've never
> heard of a chemical which actually makes you feel *happy*.
Stimulants. OK, well... it won't make you happy... but it will make you
energetic.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/29/2010 1:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:32:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2010 4:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> PMFA, but where did you get your medical degree from? If you're going
>>> to make assertions like that, I'd like to see them backed up by some
>>> sort of credentials that show you have some expertise in the field.
>>> (And before you ask, no, I don't have such expertise). Or a cite from
>>> a reputable source would suffice as well.
>>>
>> You don't need a medical degree to read articles on the effects of these
>> things, and no, I don't have, or remember, the specific magazines, or
>> which issues.
>
> Fair enough, but are you certain you're not falling to confirmation bias?
>
How is, "Taking there chemicals does X, and we can test people that take
it and *show* that it does. Not to mention it never goes away, and every
medical professional says that the people they treat never lose the
addiction, they just learn to avoid every place, person, or thing that
helped trigger it.", qualify as confirmation bias? That is the point of
medical science, versus all the woo cures people shovel, you are
***required*** to show that its true, and verify the facts you are claiming.
>>>>> * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing
>>>>> violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today
>>>>>
>>>> No it won't. As I already said, 90% of the drugs out there make the
>>>> person need more, and more, and more, the longer they use them, its
>>>> the nature of the chemical process they work by. This, short of a
>>>> treatment like Ibogaine appears to provide, is **permanent** and
>>>> **cumulative**.
>>>
>>> Depends on the drug.
>>>
>> I did say most. And, as I pointed out, it also depends on the person's
>> own biology. Some people seem to be damn near completely immune to
>> addiction. Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as caffeine.
>
> So basically, people need to be protected from themselves? I don't buy
> that. Making mistakes is part of life, and not something people should
> be insulated from. Experience is one of the best teachers out there.
>
We protect people from themselves all the damn time. Everything from, "
"Don't drive drunk, or we will arrest you.", to, "You can't swim in the
sewage pond, so we put big warning signs and a fence around it.", to,
"You vehicle **must** have working turn signals.", etc., are all about
protecting not just the rest of the people, but the moron doing it.
Experience, **a lot of the time** won't teach you anything, because in
most of those cases you will be either dead, or permanently disabled, by
experiencing it. So, don't give me the whole, "We shouldn't protect
people from themselves.", BS. This is only true for the things *you*
think we shouldn't do that for. I am certain there are plenty of things
that you do think we should, a whole host of laws and rules to do so,
and like most people that want to treat drug use as a "special" category
of, "Stupid things people do to themselves.", you just don't like *it*
being in that category, for no reason that I, personal, can see as rational.
>> Sound all well and good, but you are presuming that the criminal system
>> always catches these people, and no one that is sitting at home doing
>> that didn't do anything wrong to get their hit.
>
> I'm presuming nothing. I meet about once a month with a representative
> of the SLC police department, and he and I have very interesting chats
> about how police work is actually done and how effective it is.
>
> One of the things I take away from the conversations time and again is
> that if they didn't have to spend so much time dealing with non-violent
> offenders, they might actually be able to catch more people committing
> crimes against people& property.
>
I don't dispute that, and have said so, but the problem is that you are
classing people that are, "not in their right minds", by choice or
otherwise, in the same category as, "non-violent", in some cases. We
also prefer to arrest someone who is intentionally acting in a way that
*could* cause someone else harm. As I said, people on certain drugs do
not just all, "sit around at home, being stoned", they go places, they
do it in public, they get into their heads, while in a state of mind
where they *can't* make rational decisions, to do things that get
themselves and others killed. By your logic, it would be perfectly fine
to let mental patients out, even if classed as, "potentially dangerous",
because that particular day they are not "acting" dangerous, never mind
that they could turn at any moment, due to their condition.
As for effectiveness.. Watched something a while back on the subject of
law enforcement and we have two **huge** problems - 1) forensic
techniques that are "assumed" to be scientific, but have never been
tested under those conditions, and 2) a tendency of far too many labs to
"focus", not on where the evidence leads, like on CSI, but on who the
district attorney says they "suspect" committed something, thereby
sidelining everything from the evidence collection, to evidence
examination, to the *much* sloppier, and less precise, piecing together
of that evidence, to form a theory on what took place, and who did it.
End result - lot of people never get arrested at all, and a lot more
than should end up jailed. Finger prints, for example, are not as
certain as most people figure. The human method of comparing *can*
produce flawed results, and the computer version assumes that every
print on 3 billion people, will have completely different
characteristics, on some 50 comparison points, or the like. Neither is
"certain", or logically plausible, especially when, in many cases, you
often only have one print, and it may contain less than half of the data
points.
>> Any other way of looking at it only appears *sane* if you assume neither
>> you, nor anyone you know, will *ever* be the victim. Which one could
>> argue is either arrogant, or stupid.
>
> Nobody every said life was safe. Or fair.
>
> Jim
No, but one of the functions of society is to make it safer, and at
least try to make it fairer (even if some people still seem to want to
make it as unfair as possible, but that is a whole other issue..)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2010 2:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/07/2010 9:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as caffeine.
>
> Caffeine is quite addictive and a lot of people are addicted but it is
> easy to withdraw from.
>
Which makes a huge difference. Mind, one of the things that makes it
easy to withdraw from **is** the fact that it doesn't have an effect so
massive that it permanently changes brain chemistry. Maybe we need a
different definition. Addictive means - you would have some level of
withdrawal from it. ??? means - You can't ever completely withdraw from
it at all, and your attempt to do so will be long, painful, and incomplete.
Part of the problem in many of these things is that we end up using the
same word to describe things that, while they make work similarly, can
have **drastically** different impacts. Its like someone with MS. I had
a teacher with that, and up until a few months before it killed him, he
*seemed* completely normal. There was a friend of the family who had a
kid with it too, and he was semi-normal, up until about 10-12, then, by
the time he was 15 or so he was in a wheel chair, barely able to speak,
etc. Same condition, completely different results. Addiction is like
that. All addiction works much the same, but *some* forms of it are
severely debilitating, and leave lasting scares, which someone opting to
drink soda pop, instead of taking crack, **doesn't have to worry
about**, even if, in principle, the result uses the same word to
describe it.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Me, I've never really figured out the difference between "addictive" and
"habituating".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/29/2010 2:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Even the ones that try to get off it,
>> because they realize they made a mistake, are stuck in a situation where
>> they are **permanently** wanting to stick their foot in the wood chipper
>> again. Their brain chemistry has changed, and they can't **stop**
>> wanting to *ever*. I would say that *that* is a pretty damn big
>> consequence, in and of itself, without all the other garbage people drop
>> in their laps, including the, often, complete destruction of their
>> lives, which just make it all that more tempting to give in to the need
>> they can't ever get rid of.
>
> Yep. Sucks, don't it? At the point where they're wanting to continue,
> someone certainly can intervene (and many people do). But consider this
> as well - that person who's so hooked they're going to get their fix
> however they can is going to break some other law in order to do so, and
> land themselves in jail. They don't allow drugs in jail (and the types
> of drugs we're talking about, they shouldn't allow), so they get a chance
> to be rehabilitated.
>
Man are you clueless. One of the **biggest** problems in US jails, other
than putting killers in with people that did lesser offenses, and people
killing each other, as a result, is that they **still** find ways to
smuggle the drugs in, and most jails tend to be run by people, operating
under rules written by people, who are even bigger hard asses about this
than you are, and **Do not believe** in wasting money on "any" kind of
rehab, beyond absolutely necessary to keep someone from dying from it.
No rehab for drugs, no rehab for their behavior, no rehab for
"anything". The #1 reason why you get so many religious groups in them,
peddling their version of rehab, is because the state won't spend a
dime, either to make sure the rehab they do get is actually effective
(and, as I said, the woo based stuff, whether its drug addiction, or
robbery prevention, has a shitty recidivism rate), never mind on
providing any alternative. The view point of the people that think
jailing everyone in sight, and who manage to end up running these
programs, and deciding what is funded, is that "no one" in there
deserves *anything*. The fact that this has turned most of them into
revolving doors, or worse, trade shows for more effective means of
hiding drugs, selling drugs, robbing buildings, scamming people out of
money, etc., they simply deny, completely.
We are dealing with a justice system, whose "solution", more often than
not, is not too far different from the old days when England simply
dumped every malcontent that wasn't useful to them on Australia, with a
small handful of troops to keep them away from the port, and said, "We
wash our hands of you." The last time anyone even seriously talked about
"real" rehab in jails the reaction was, "Just let in more priests.", the
state can't afford to do anything.
Its *exactly* the same idiot logic as you get with immigration. One side
says, "Throw them all out, arrest everyone in sight, and don't let them
back in.", the other side says, "OK, but what about the ones that
actually have businesses, have lived here for more than 10 years, have
kids, etc., and are **not** on welfare, like you accuse them of?", to
which the other side replies, "Deport them too, we don't give a damn!
You people just want them all to stay here!"
You tell someone, "We need effective rehab, both for drug use and other
behaviors in our jails.", the other side's reaction is **always**, "Why
the hell should we waste money on any of them?" The reply is, "Because
they will be out of jail at some point, in which case, as things stand,
they will still be doing the same things, only now you let them get more
dangerous, because you didn't want to do a damn thing to help them find
a better solution." The reply is **always**, "So, make the sentence
longer. If they never get out of jail, we don't have to worry about them
being worse when they get out!"
The stupidity of the system we are using, and the blind refusal to
recognize that its more complex than one side makes it, and we need to
solve *all* of the problems, not just the ones that make it "look" like
they are protecting the public, is complete fracking madness. Europe
seems to get this. The US, has half its population with its heads up
their asses, and thus, it just gets worse and worse. And part of that is
this perception that, "Individual responsibility", somehow trumps all,
if its something like drug use, but, too many of the people making this
claim, not that you do, but **way** too many of them, immediately blame
everyone else for *their* mistakes, when they make them, and no one
seems to grasp that "sometimes", to have a safe, sane, and stable
society, there has to be a recognition that some people need **help**,
and that giving it to them is better for everyone, not just the guy that
some jerk thinks should be allowed to do anything they like, with the
only consequence always being to tell them, "Screw you, we won't help you!"
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
