So it's now just over a week since that epic dance last Saturday night. 
And I'm just sitting here reflecting on what happened there. In 
particular, once I started dancing, I underwent a rather radical 
transformation.



First of all, usually when I'm at class, I get about 45 seconds into a 
dance and start to feel really quite tired. (45 seconds may not sound 
like a lot, but as the Beatles pointed out in Yellow Submarine, even 60 
seconds is a surprisingly long time.) By the end of the dance, depending 
on how long it is, I'm really quite breathless.

And yet, on Saturday night I danced and danced and danced and danced and 
danced. The first dance was just as tiring as it always is. But by the 
end of the evening I was dancing multiple tracks back-to-back. I'd go 
fling my partner round the dance floor for 3 minutes (or whatever the 
typical track length is), take her back to her seat, pick a new partner, 
and go dance another one!

And it's not that I was fighting hard to overcome tiredness either. It's 
because I DIDN'T FEEL TIRED. I had no sensation of tiredness at all. 
Indeed, I felt the *opposite* of tired. It was physically difficult to 
stand still. When I got home, in the middle of the night, I was 
_skipping_ down the road to my front door!



Secondly, there was a rather spectacular change in my personallity. As 
one or two of you might be aware, I'm not a confident person. I am a 
shy, quiet person who sits in the corner not speaking to anybody.

I love to dance, but even that said, I am usually the guy dancing right 
at the back of the dance floor so that nobody can see me. And even then, 
only if it's a dance that I'm 100% certain that I know how to do, and 
I'm completely confident in my partner's ability to do the dance too.

I don't know what the hell came over me on Saturday, but I was 
*psyched*. I'm up on the dance floor throwing my partner around, and I 
felt like my dancing was on *fire*! I felt like I could take on the 
entire ****ing WORLD.

AND WIN!!

A couple of times, the dance floor was completely empty, and without a 
shadow of hesitation I dragged Debbie out there to dance with me. 
Debbie, only the best dancer in the entire building. So, no pressure or 
anything then. Much. We're the only dancers on the dance floor, the 
whole place is watching our every move, and I haven't got a care in the 
world. I *want* them to watch us, because I think we're dancing so 
excellently and I want everybody to see.

Five minutes later, the floor is once again empty for a moment, and I 
drag Elaine out there. Little Elaine, who's had, what, a grand total of 
4 dance lessons? She's a total beginner, and bless her, she's still very 
new at this. I know for a fact her dancing will not, cannot, be perfect. 
And yet I'm still happy to dance with her in front of everybody, on an 
empty floor.

Jesus Christ, I wanted Laura and Lucy to come and do Double Trouble with 
me. I was completely serious. And I DON'T EVEN KNOW DOUBLE TROUBLE!!! 
What the hell was I thinking?! O_O (Fortunately, Laura had more sense... 
Man, that would have been one short dance!)



I really don't know what happened to me on Saturday night. But I liked it!

People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say 
is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is* 
there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited 
and energetic? I rather doubt it.

Is it normal for exercise to provoke these kinds of reactions??

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say
> is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is*
> there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
> and energetic?

Yes.  That's why they are illegal.  and expensive.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:36:56 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> And it's not that I was fighting hard to overcome tiredness either. It's
> because I DIDN'T FEEL TIRED. I had no sensation of tiredness at all.
> Indeed, I felt the *opposite* of tired. It was physically difficult to
> stand still. When I got home, in the middle of the night, I was
> _skipping_ down the road to my front door!

That's the adrenaline rush that I (and others) mentioned before - you got 
there!  Good job sticking with it.  It's a pretty good euphoria, isn't it?

> People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say
> is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is*
> there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
> and energetic? I rather doubt it.

Adrenaline, or epinephrine (essentially the same thing IIRC).

> Is it normal for exercise to provoke these kinds of reactions??

Yes, absolutely, but it's not something that happens the first time, 
you've got to build to it, and you have.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Seriously, *is*
>> there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
>> and energetic?
> 
> Yes.  That's why they are illegal.  and expensive.

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*.

(I gather that antidepressants are supposed to do that, and they 
spectacularly fail to work.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> And it's not that I was fighting hard to overcome tiredness either. It's
>> because I DIDN'T FEEL TIRED. I had no sensation of tiredness at all.
>> Indeed, I felt the *opposite* of tired. It was physically difficult to
>> stand still. When I got home, in the middle of the night, I was
>> _skipping_ down the road to my front door!
> 
> That's the adrenaline rush that I (and others) mentioned before - you got 
> there!  Good job sticking with it.  It's a pretty good euphoria, isn't it?

Heh. 1 o'clock in the morning and I'm dancing little drop-basics and 
doing twirls as I walk down the street, shaking my booty to the music 
that nobody else can hear. People must think I'm a total crack-head! :-)

>> People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say
>> is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is*
>> there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
>> and energetic? I rather doubt it.
> 
> Adrenaline, or epinephrine (essentially the same thing IIRC).

Is this the same adrenaline that causes rapid heartbeat, stomach cramps, 
axiety, profuse sweating, rage, depression and shortness of breath?

>> Is it normal for exercise to provoke these kinds of reactions??
> 
> Yes, absolutely, but it's not something that happens the first time, 
> you've got to build to it, and you have.  :-)

Heh. I blame the Young family. If they hadn't been there, my evening 
would have gone rather differently...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:56:37 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> And it's not that I was fighting hard to overcome tiredness either.
>>> It's because I DIDN'T FEEL TIRED. I had no sensation of tiredness at
>>> all. Indeed, I felt the *opposite* of tired. It was physically
>>> difficult to stand still. When I got home, in the middle of the night,
>>> I was _skipping_ down the road to my front door!
>> 
>> That's the adrenaline rush that I (and others) mentioned before - you
>> got there!  Good job sticking with it.  It's a pretty good euphoria,
>> isn't it?
> 
> Heh. 1 o'clock in the morning and I'm dancing little drop-basics and
> doing twirls as I walk down the street, shaking my booty to the music
> that nobody else can hear. People must think I'm a total crack-head! :-)

And what's more, you don't (and shouldn't) care! :-)

>>> People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can
>>> say is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously,
>>> *is* there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident,
>>> excited and energetic? I rather doubt it.
>> 
>> Adrenaline, or epinephrine (essentially the same thing IIRC).
> 
> Is this the same adrenaline that causes rapid heartbeat, stomach cramps,
> axiety, profuse sweating, rage, depression and shortness of breath?

Yep, it certainly is.  It's responsible for a fair amount.

>>> Is it normal for exercise to provoke these kinds of reactions??
>> 
>> Yes, absolutely, but it's not something that happens the first time,
>> you've got to build to it, and you have.  :-)
> 
> Heh. I blame the Young family. If they hadn't been there, my evening
> would have gone rather differently...

Now that you've gotten to it once, you may see it again - just enjoy it.  
You've earned it. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Is this the same adrenaline that causes rapid heartbeat, stomach cramps,
>> axiety, profuse sweating, rage, depression and shortness of breath?
> 
> Yep, it certainly is.  It's responsible for a fair amount.

Right. So.. .the adrenaline that makes you feel awful is also 
responsible for me feeling so mellowed out? How does *that* work??

> Now that you've gotten to it once, you may see it again - just enjoy it.  
> You've earned it. :-)

On Friday, hopefully...

Basically, what happened is that last weekend, half my dance school 
descended on a small village that was holding a Rock & Roll night. All 
the teachers were there. These people are elite. And I don't just mean 
they impressed me. These people are so elite that they have actual 
*certificates* to prove exactly how elite they really are. And I danced 
with all of them! I started off as shy as ever, but after a couple of 
hours of *flying* round a dance floor with partners who are both able 
and willing, I was on the ceiling. Perhaps you gathered?

Make no mistake: My school took the damned dance floor apart. It's us 
verses all commers baby, and we're winning! We are on *fire*. Even the 
clueless newbies put in heroic performances. What they lacked in skill 
they more than made up for in enthusiasm. It was a special night...

And on Friday, the school is on another official outing. This time we're 
travelling to Wellingborough. Now that's further to go, and I'm not sure 
how many of us are coming. If there's not many of us, it could be quite 
dull. But if the right people are there, this could be another epic saga 
that songs will be sung of and ballads written over.

We shall see...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 25/07/2010 7:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> >
>> >  Is this the same adrenaline that causes rapid heartbeat, stomach cramps,
>> >  axiety, profuse sweating, rage, depression and shortness of breath?

> Yep, it certainly is.  It's responsible for a fair amount.
>

You forgot to mention it can be addictive (both adrenaline and exercise).

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/07/2010 8:02 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Right. So.. .the adrenaline that makes you feel awful is also
> responsible for me feeling so mellowed out? How does *that* work??

That will be the endorphins nor the adrenaline see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Right. So.. .the adrenaline that makes you feel awful is also
>> responsible for me feeling so mellowed out? How does *that* work??
> 
> That will be the endorphins not the adrenaline.

Now that at least makes sense...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> You forgot to mention it can be addictive (both adrenaline and exercise).

Oh, well, I'm not especially worried about becoming addicted to 
exercise. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 25/07/2010 9:15 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> You forgot to mention it can be addictive (both adrenaline and exercise).
>
> Oh, well, I'm not especially worried about becoming addicted to
> exercise. ;-)
>

The benefits outweigh the disadvantages.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:06:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 25/07/2010 7:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>>> >  Is this the same adrenaline that causes rapid heartbeat, stomach
>>> >  cramps, axiety, profuse sweating, rage, depression and shortness of
>>> >  breath?
> 
>> Yep, it certainly is.  It's responsible for a fair amount.
>>
>>
> You forgot to mention it can be addictive (both adrenaline and
> exercise).

Very true. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25/07/2010 11:23 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:06:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 25/07/2010 7:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>>>
>> You forgot to mention it can be addictive (both adrenaline and
>> exercise).
>
> Very true. :-)
>

I broke the habit years ago ;-)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:37:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 25/07/2010 11:23 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:06:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/07/2010 7:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>>> You forgot to mention it can be addictive (both adrenaline and
>>> exercise).
>>
>> Very true. :-)
>>
>>
> I broke the habit years ago ;-)

I've only been to the gym once since October....and I think I need to 
start going again.

Thing is, I actually can get a membership rate that's lower through my 
insurance company, but I have to cancel my current membership, and 
everything I've read says that doing so requires an act of $DEITY and has 
all sorts of conditions tied to it.

One of those may well be (and it isn't clear) that I can't come in as a 
new member again, which is one of the caveats of getting the membership 
through in insurance company.  <sigh>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> And it's not that I was fighting hard to overcome tiredness either. It's 
> because I DIDN'T FEEL TIRED. I had no sensation of tiredness at all. 
> Indeed, I felt the *opposite* of tired. It was physically difficult to 
> stand still. When I got home, in the middle of the night, I was 
> _skipping_ down the road to my front door!

I'm still loving the fact that yesterday I dragged myself out of bed at 
10 o'clock in the morning and I felt exhausted having done nearly 
nothing all Saturday. And yet, last Saturday I spent hours working my 
arse off on a dance floor and ended up with so much surplus energy that 
I actually couldn't stand still.

So there we have it. Working gives you energy, resting makes you tired. 
GO FIGURE!

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2010 12:37 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> I've only been to the gym once since October....and I think I need to
> start going again.
>
> Thing is, I actually can get a membership rate that's lower through my
> insurance company, but I have to cancel my current membership, and
> everything I've read says that doing so requires an act of $DEITY and has
> all sorts of conditions tied to it.
>
> One of those may well be (and it isn't clear) that I can't come in as a
> new member again, which is one of the caveats of getting the membership
> through in insurance company.<sigh>
>

Is there another gym you can go to?
I suppose you've thought of that so please disregard.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> I've only been to the gym once since October....and I think I need to 
> start going again.

I asked the local gym, but they want £52 *per month* just to give me the 
_option_ of going to the gym. Then when I actually go there's another 
fee on top of that.

Bugger that. I'll stick to my dancing; it's probably just as good a 
workout, it's far more fun and it's drastically cheaper. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.07.2010 14:36, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say
> is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is*
> there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
> and energetic? I rather doubt it.

Sounds like you're asking for endorphines. And guess what: They're 
legal, and for free :-)

> Is it normal for exercise to provoke these kinds of reactions??

Yes, especially condition training.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.07.2010 21:02, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>> Is this the same adrenaline that causes rapid heartbeat, stomach cramps,
>>> axiety, profuse sweating, rage, depression and shortness of breath?
>>
>> Yep, it certainly is. It's responsible for a fair amount.
>
> Right. So.. .the adrenaline that makes you feel awful is also
> responsible for me feeling so mellowed out? How does *that* work??

I guess the difference is whether you "let it out": Adrenaline is meant 
to give an extra power boost to your body to either fight or run. If you 
fail to do either, it will kick your own ass.


Rapid heartbeat and shortness of breath: Preparation for increased 
oxygen demand.

Stomach cramps: Possibly preparation to literally drop some ballast.

Sweating: Preparation for increased heat production.

Rage: The emotional state associated with the decision to fight.

Anxiety: The emotional state associated with the decision to run.


Depression: The emotional state associated with being unable to either 
fight or run. The natural state of waiting for the jackals and vultures 
to come and get you, or a miracle to save you.

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.07.2010 12:14, schrieb Invisible:

> Bugger that. I'll stick to my dancing; it's probably just as good a
> workout, it's far more fun and it's drastically cheaper. :-P

Possibly so. The fun factor is especially valuable.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:26:49 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26/07/2010 12:37 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I've only been to the gym once since October....and I think I need to
>> start going again.
>>
>> Thing is, I actually can get a membership rate that's lower through my
>> insurance company, but I have to cancel my current membership, and
>> everything I've read says that doing so requires an act of $DEITY and
>> has all sorts of conditions tied to it.
>>
>> One of those may well be (and it isn't clear) that I can't come in as a
>> new member again, which is one of the caveats of getting the membership
>> through in insurance company.<sigh>
>>
>>
> Is there another gym you can go to?

There is, in fact the ins co covers multiple gyms, but I actually really 
like the one I'm at (but then again, it's the first one I've gone to, so 
going somewhere else might show me that I'm actually missing something).

> I suppose you've thought of that so please disregard.

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:14:20 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I've only been to the gym once since October....and I think I need to
>> start going again.
> 
> I asked the local gym, but they want £52 *per month* just to give me the
> _option_ of going to the gym. Then when I actually go there's another
> fee on top of that.

That's crazy - a lot more than I currently pay (about $30/month).

> Bugger that. I'll stick to my dancing; it's probably just as good a
> workout, it's far more fun and it's drastically cheaper. :-P

Out of curiosity, are the leisure centers similarly equipped and is there 
a cost to go there?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say
> > is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is*
> > there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
> > and energetic?

> Yes.  That's why they are illegal.  and expensive.

  I thought they are illegal because they have a very high risk of causing
heavy addiction, which not only has negative health effects but also has a
bunch of other negative side-effects (such as increasing crime rates because
many people can't afford the substances and thus have to steal in order to
get them).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27/07/2010 7:08 AM, Warp wrote:
> nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say
>>> is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is*
>>> there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
>>> and energetic?
>
>> Yes.  That's why they are illegal.  and expensive.
>
>    I thought they are illegal because they have a very high risk of causing
> heavy addiction, which not only has negative health effects but also has a
> bunch of other negative side-effects (such as increasing crime rates because
> many people can't afford the substances and thus have to steal in order to
> get them).
>

Nah! They are illegal because the “law makers” know what is better for 
us than we do ourselves.

Bampots!

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:28:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Nah! They are illegal because the “law makers” know what is better for
> us than we do ourselves.
> 
> Bampots!

You took the words right out of my mouth.  I hope I didn't bite you. :-)

(Though I wouldn't have said 'lawmakers' but rather 'moral majority' here 
in the US)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/27/2010 11:50 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:28:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Nah! They are illegal because the “law makers” know what is better for
>> us than we do ourselves.
>>
>> Bampots!
>
> You took the words right out of my mouth.  I hope I didn't bite you. :-)
>
> (Though I wouldn't have said 'lawmakers' but rather 'moral majority' here
> in the US)
>
> Jim
Oh, give me a break. Yeah, there are some "low level" things, like pot, 
for which this is a believable assertion. And, it doesn't follow that 
they can tell you that you "must" wire buildings a certain way, for 
public safety, and do so licensed, but they can't tell you that you are 
not allowed to do so why taking cocaine. Either there is a hazard, or 
their isn't. The problem, in a nutshell, is that a small number of 
purists think *everything* is a hazard, including, in some case, the one 
they tried to ban before, but now only keep people from buying, in some 
places, on Sundays, whether it qualifies or not.

I do, however, agree with the argument that it also costs the tax payer 
money to cover treatment for avoidable problems, from things like 
cigarettes, and that this *could be* a legitimate grounds to 
limits/curtail their use. Unless you are a Rethuglican, in which case 
pot is evil, but you should be allowed to smoke yourself to death, at a 
huge cost to the federal and state budgets, with impunity... lol

Nearly everything else *is* addictive, sometimes instantly, and 
permanently alters brain chemistry, such that you also have to keep 
trying to take more of it, to get the same result, not to mention 
placing most people that take them in a state of mind that they 
literally can't imagine doing anything to hurt anyone else, even while, 
in the case of the nastiest of them, they are running them over with a 
car. The drunk is similarly bad, but it takes way more to do that, and 
they are not going to be laughing their ass off, as they run you over, 
they just won't notice they hit you. That bars can have X drink 
minimums, but no means/attempt is made to try to keep people from going 
to 40 bars and buying the minimum 2 drinks at every damn one of them, is 
something I have thought is bloody assed stupid. Sure, the solution 
would be complicated, and some people would cheat, and some wackos would 
whine about the government "watching them", or some BS, if they had to 
have their ID scanned every time, and bars where networked to track that 
stuff. But, arresting 2% of all the idiots that get stinking drunk, 
hoping it will make the other 98% think twice? That is just flat out 
useless.

Mind, read an article recently about the other "you really don't want to 
take this recreationally, if you plan to do anything except sit around 
under its influence, class of psychedelics. One called Ibogaine has two 
interesting effects. Its psychedelic effect is a replay of past events 
in your life, and it seems to reset brain chemistry, eliminating all 
addiction to other substances. The problem is, its insanely easy to 
overdose on it, and the UK had a serious of deaths in the program they 
where testing it in.



-- 
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 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:15:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Oh, give me a break. Yeah, there are some "low level" things, like pot,
> for which this is a believable assertion.

The people who are for the prohibition of drugs use the same logic that 
brought about alcohol prohibition in the 30's.  It's not about the costs 
to cover treatment and such - it's about it being "bad" for people to do 
that.  It's about one group of people asserting their sense of moral 
superiority.

Understand, I have never done drugs, I never intend to do drugs, and I 
have no desire to do them.  I personally wouldn't because I do think it 
would be bad for me (in a number of ways).  I come at this from a 
standpoint of not having experienced anything related to the types of 
drugs we're talking about (I once got pretty tripped out on Hydrocodone, 
which I react very badly to, but that's a slightly different story 
because it was something obtained with a prescription).

If someone wants to be addicted to cigarettes, pot, alcohol, etc - as 
long as they're not impacting me (through secondhand smoke, for example), 
I don't care.  They can knock themselves out.  Once it leaves them, just 
as with alcohol, then there are consequences and let the consequences be 
steep (as they are for DUI, for example).

Legalization can make those drugs a tax base (as with cigarettes and 
alcohol, and being in Utah, I know a thing or three about alcohol taxes 
because they're DAMNED high here) and legalization can turn it into an 
actual industry, with quality control and the like.  I don't think it's 
naive to think that - I think that's what we saw with alcohol when 
prohibition was repealed.  Sure, some people still make their own hooch 
at home (we've been known to make wine ourselves), but the vast majority 
comes from licensed establishments and sales venues, and there are pretty 
strict controls over the production of alcohol.

It's been done before, and the only thing stopping it from being done 
again is people who - as I said - try to assert that they have a moral 
imperative (and hence a moral superiority) to prohibit those substances, 
and I for one, thing that's total BS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> The people who are for the prohibition of drugs use the same logic that 
> brought about alcohol prohibition in the 30's.  It's not about the costs 
> to cover treatment and such - it's about it being "bad" for people to do 
> that.  It's about one group of people asserting their sense of moral 
> superiority.

This entire subthread baffles me. (And for once, I don't just mean "how 
the **** did we end up *here*?")

Of course, you're entirely right. Why would a team of medical experts 
who've studied the addictive effects of drugs and the damage they do to 
the human body know more about it than some random guy on the street? 
Everyone agrees - wait, let me change that - almost everyone agrees we 
shouldn't let people commit suicide. It is therefore completely logical 
that we should allow people to slowly poison themselves to death, while 
at the same time causing untold misery around them.

Hold on - no, actually that entire paragraph makes *no* sense at all! :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:13:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Why would a team of medical experts
> who've studied the addictive effects of drugs and the damage they do to
> the human body know more about it than some random guy on the street?

If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm 
terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in 
the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is 
a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF 
SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)

In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even 
chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth 
perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think 
there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* - and 
they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain has 
evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.

Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US, it 
is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states have 
legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* (who I'd consider to have 
medical training and who have studied the effects and have decided that 
there's a benefit, for example, for people with chronic untreatable pain) 
are in favor of it, and it's the anti-science people who think it should 
be left illegal.

What is a real problem with drug use today (at least in the US) is that 
the quality control for those drugs is nonexistent - and that's part (but 
not the entire) of the reason why there are problems with drug users.  
Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of production, 
and you see several positive side effects:

 * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental 
overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next is 
overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).  
 * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such 
as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute). 
 * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you know 
most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some standard 
of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
 * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where 
money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services 
that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
drinking)
 * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing 
violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today

None of the crime reduction benefits is a total reduction, just as you 
see people buying oxycodone on the black market, a black market would 
still exist, but it would be a much smaller black market than it is now.

There are also plenty of people who think suicide should be allowed as an 
option in certain circumstances - not just Dr. Kevorkian.  I had a friend 
in the Netherlands (if memory serves - I knew him only online as part of 
a very close group) who had terminal cancer, and he decided he didn't 
want to suffer until he died - so he chose to end his life on his terms, 
and he had the assistance of a qualified and trained medical professional.

Life is a terminal condition, and I personally think it's a little crazy 
that the government and the insurance companies can decide that I should 
*suffer* against my will if I'm in a terminal situation.

But that's a discussion for another day.  It's 3:05 AM here now, and I 
*have* to get some sleep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm 
> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in 
> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is 
> a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF 
> SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
> 
> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even 
> chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth 
> perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think 
> there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* - and 
> they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain has 
> evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.

So... the people who think pot should be illegal are the people who are 
apparently already smoking it? :-.

> Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US, it 
> is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states have 
> legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors*
> are in favor of it, and it's the anti-science people who think it should 
> be left illegal.

Presumably "legal under prescription" though?

> Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of production, 
> and you see several positive side effects:
> 
>  * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental 
> overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next is 
> overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).  
>  * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such 
> as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute). 
>  * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you know 
> most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some standard 
> of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
>  * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where 
> money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services 
> that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
> drinking)
>  * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing 
> violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today

Well, that does make logical sense.

On the other hand, make it legal and 5,000x more people will be doing it.

In my opinion, tobacco should be illegal. We'd see far fewer people 
dying a slow, lingering death from cancer. But it's far more profitable 
for the government to allow its sale and tax it to hell. So it will 
forever more be legal. Stupid but true...

> There are also plenty of people who think suicide should be allowed as an 
> option in certain circumstances.

Sure. And *that* is a whole *other* debate...

Post a reply to this message

On 27/07/2010 7:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> (Though I wouldn't have said 'lawmakers' but rather 'moral majority' here
> in the US)
>

We call them "the press"

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 28/07/2010 5:22 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:15:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Oh, give me a break. Yeah, there are some "low level" things, like pot,
>> for which this is a believable assertion.
>
> The people who are for the prohibition of drugs use the same logic that
> brought about alcohol prohibition in the 30's.  It's not about the costs
> to cover treatment and such - it's about it being "bad" for people to do
> that.  It's about one group of people asserting their sense of moral
> superiority.
>

I'm with you on this.

> Understand, I have never done drugs, I never intend to do drugs, and I
> have no desire to do them.  I personally wouldn't because I do think it
> would be bad for me (in a number of ways).  I come at this from a
> standpoint of not having experienced anything related to the types of
> drugs we're talking about (I once got pretty tripped out on Hydrocodone,
> which I react very badly to, but that's a slightly different story
> because it was something obtained with a prescription).
>
> If someone wants to be addicted to cigarettes, pot, alcohol, etc - as
> long as they're not impacting me (through secondhand smoke, for example),
> I don't care.  They can knock themselves out.  Once it leaves them, just
> as with alcohol, then there are consequences and let the consequences be
> steep (as they are for DUI, for example).
>
Understand that I have taken (not done :-)) drugs and I’ve seen people 
get into bad states with them. I’ve seen young and old people of both 
sexes lying unconscious in the street covered in their own vomit, 
fights, dui, families kept poor and abused, lives ruined. The list is 
endless and then we move away from alcohol.
If you tell some people that something is not allowed then that will 
make it exciting and glamorous to them. Prohibition did not work in the 
USA and the “war on drugs” is IMO a waste of time and resources.

> Legalization can make those drugs a tax base (as with cigarettes and
> alcohol, and being in Utah, I know a thing or three about alcohol taxes
> because they're DAMNED high here) and legalization can turn it into an
> actual industry, with quality control and the like.  I don't think it's
> naive to think that - I think that's what we saw with alcohol when
> prohibition was repealed.  Sure, some people still make their own hooch
> at home (we've been known to make wine ourselves), but the vast majority
> comes from licensed establishments and sales venues, and there are pretty
> strict controls over the production of alcohol.
>

Consider the Netherlands where pot while not legal is controlled and 
sold in coffee shops. This has not made the Dutch into a nation of pot 
heads. Most Dutch people I’ve met and worked with are quite dismissive 
of cannabis, it’s what you try when you are young.

> It's been done before, and the only thing stopping it from being done
> again is people who - as I said - try to assert that they have a moral
> imperative (and hence a moral superiority) to prohibit those substances,
> and I for one, thing that's total BS.
>

Total BS, I agree

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:07:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 27/07/2010 7:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Though I wouldn't have said 'lawmakers' but rather 'moral majority'
>> here in the US)
>>
>>
> We call them "the press"

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:21:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Understand that I have taken (not done :-)) drugs and I’ve seen people
> get into bad states with them. 

"Two countries separated by a common language". ;-)  I've known people 
who have taken/used/done (just to cover the bases) drugs, and yeah, some 
of them have described "bad trips" to me.

> I’ve seen young and old people of both
> sexes lying unconscious in the street covered in their own vomit,
> fights, dui, families kept poor and abused, lives ruined. The list is
> endless and then we move away from alcohol. 

Indeed.  I've got a family member who served time in prison for a DUI 
offense that involved someone dying.  Pot?  Gives one the munchies (so 
I'm told).

> If you tell some people that
> something is not allowed then that will make it exciting and glamorous
> to them. Prohibition did not work in the USA and the “war on drugs” is
> IMO a waste of time and resources.

Exactly.  But don't get me started on the whole phraseology of "the war 
on 'x'", because I think the whole idea is stupid.  A war is something 
that *should* be winnable, and you can't win against a concept.

> Consider the Netherlands where pot while not legal is controlled and
> sold in coffee shops. This has not made the Dutch into a nation of pot
> heads. Most Dutch people I’ve met and worked with are quite dismissive
> of cannabis, it’s what you try when you are young.

Yep.  There's no mystery, no sense of "I'm doing something bad/wrong" or 
"I'm getting away with something I shouldn't be", and the mystique and/or 
novelty wears off as a result.

It's the same reason many kids try cigarettes when they're in High School 
(or earlier) here in the US:  They're not allowed to.  So they rebel and 
do it behind the school while nobody's watching.   Oooooo, dangerous.  
You're SUCH a bad boy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:15:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm
>> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in
>> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution
>> is a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS
>> PART OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
>> 
>> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even
>> chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth
>> perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think
>> there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* -
>> and they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain
>> has evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.
> 
> So... the people who think pot should be illegal are the people who are
> apparently already smoking it? :-.

No, it's people who have no background in medicine or even chemistry at 
all (for the most part), who want to assert authority they feel is 
derived from their self-serving sense of moral superiority.

>> Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US,
>> it is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states
>> have legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* are in favor of it,
>> and it's the anti-science people who think it should be left illegal.
> 
> Presumably "legal under prescription" though?

To which part of the quoted section would this question apply?

>> Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of
>> production, and you see several positive side effects:
>> 
>>  * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental
>> overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next
>> is overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).
>>  * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such
>> as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute).
>>  * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you
>>  know
>> most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some
>> standard of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
>>  * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where
>> money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services
>> that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
>> drinking)
>>  * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing
>> violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today
> 
> Well, that does make logical sense.
> 
> On the other hand, make it legal and 5,000x more people will be doing
> it.

Maybe.  Probably not.  But if they do, the taxes pay for services that 
they might need.  In the UK, I'm fairly certain that part of the 
cigarette taxes that the users pay go to the NHS, for example.

> In my opinion, tobacco should be illegal. We'd see far fewer people
> dying a slow, lingering death from cancer. But it's far more profitable
> for the government to allow its sale and tax it to hell. So it will
> forever more be legal. Stupid but true...

Well, yes, but again, it comes down to personal choice, too.  I had a 
great-uncle (ie, my mother's uncle) who had emphysema.  It was serious 
enough that he was on oxygen pretty much 24x7.  He used to sneak into the 
garage - WITH HIS OXYGEN TANK - to sneak cigarettes.

That was his choice.  It was painful to watch (I was very young when he 
died and I don't remember him very well, but I know my mother was 
heartbroken over it - even though she and my dad were both smokers at the 
time), but uncle Mac made his choice, and he lived (and died) with the 
consequences.

The thing is - if tobacco had been illegal, he probably would have bought 
his cigarettes on the black market.  People will find a way.

>> There are also plenty of people who think suicide should be allowed as
>> an option in certain circumstances.
> 
> Sure. And *that* is a whole *other* debate...

It certainly is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4c4ff2fb@news.povray.org...

> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm
> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in
> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is
> a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF
> SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
>
> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even
> chemistry training.

Such policies have little or nothing to do with science. It's mainly an
economic, sociological and logistic issue.

You don't need the professional opinion of a chemist to decide what drunk
driving fines or sentences should be, or whether to fine them at all, for
instance. You just ask the chemist or doctor to provide you with the means
of measuring the amount of alcohol in blood. That's it.

> legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* (who I'd consider to have
> medical training and who have studied the effects and have decided that
> there's a benefit, for example, for people with chronic untreatable pain)
> are in favor of it,

Doctors can only look at it from a limited perspective, so they don't make
good policymakers. You duly note their professional opinion. The economic
and social implications are a completely different and larger part of the
entire picture. I'm not arguing pro or con, but it's naive to think that
those who are con are anti-doctor, anti-medicine and anti-science.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:06:15 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4c4ff2fb@news.povray.org...
> 
>> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm
>> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in
>> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution
>> is a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS
>> PART OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
>>
>> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even
>> chemistry training.
> 
> Such policies have little or nothing to do with science. It's mainly an
> economic, sociological and logistic issue.

True, but the people who push that agenda misrepresent facts about the 
science as well in order to get their way.  "By any means necessary" is 
the motto for many people with such an agenda.

> You don't need the professional opinion of a chemist to decide what
> drunk driving fines or sentences should be, or whether to fine them at
> all, for instance. You just ask the chemist or doctor to provide you
> with the means of measuring the amount of alcohol in blood. That's it.

Sure.  But with regards to the bogus reason that it should be illegal 
"because it's bad for you".  By that logic, eating eggs should be illegal 
because they can elevate your "bad" cholesterol.  Drinking water should 
be illegal because you can drown in it (or die of water intoxication by 
significantly "overhydrating").

>> legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* (who I'd consider to have
>> medical training and who have studied the effects and have decided that
>> there's a benefit, for example, for people with chronic untreatable
>> pain) are in favor of it,
> 
> Doctors can only look at it from a limited perspective, so they don't
> make good policymakers. You duly note their professional opinion. The
> economic and social implications are a completely different and larger
> part of the entire picture. I'm not arguing pro or con, but it's naive
> to think that those who are con are anti-doctor, anti-medicine and
> anti-science.

Sure, I didn't mean to paint everyone who's against it with a broad 
brush, but the majority (in my observation) use bogus science to push 
their agenda.  I live in Utah, and I see this quite regularly with 
regards to the sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco (highest in the nation 
IIRC), and given that there are a significant number of the population 
here who are LDS who believe that even caffeine is "evil" (I've heard 
some people say that - and if you think it's not against the C&Ds, try 
ordering a Coke, coffee, or black tea at The Roof, which is a restaurant 
owned by the church).

Granted, that's going to be something typically held by the purists.  I 
know plenty of inactive church members who drink alcohol and/or smoke as 
well.  But the alcohol laws in Utah have been backwards for longer than 
pretty much everywhere else in the US (I think Kansas now has more strict 
laws regarding alcohol than Utah).  When I moved out here, a friend said 
"Welcome to Utah:  Step back 20 years" and at least regarding the alcohol 
laws, he was right.  There still are strange laws on the books, but at 
least now you can order beer at a bar without ordering food, and I think 
they might even be allowed to put more than one drink down - when I moved 
out here, you had to finish the first one ("Don't worry, I'll wait" said 
one waitress as I finished my first beer - and she held the second one 
while I did).

So now I think we're probably only about 12 years behind the rest of the 
nation. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/28/2010 2:06 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:13:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Why would a team of medical experts
>> who've studied the addictive effects of drugs and the damage they do to
>> the human body know more about it than some random guy on the street?
>
> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm
> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in
> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is
> a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF
> SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
>
> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even
> chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth
> perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think
> there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* - and
> they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain has
> evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.
>
> Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US, it
> is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states have
> legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* (who I'd consider to have
> medical training and who have studied the effects and have decided that
> there's a benefit, for example, for people with chronic untreatable pain)
> are in favor of it, and it's the anti-science people who think it should
> be left illegal.
>
> What is a real problem with drug use today (at least in the US) is that
> the quality control for those drugs is nonexistent - and that's part (but
> not the entire) of the reason why there are problems with drug users.
> Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of production,
> and you see several positive side effects:
>
>   * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental
> overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next is
> overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).
Uh.. Sorry, but this is total bull. **Most** drugs need to stay illegal. 
They have no medical use, their effects require you keep taking higher 
doses to get the same effect, due to how they mangle your brain 
chemistry, they often do serious long term damage, and they create a 
danger to the public that, even more than alcohol, which you need to 
drink a fair amount of first, even a single dose causes for the drug.

More to the point, overdose is caused as much by the need to keep 
increasing dosage as it is by the effects of addins. A consistent dose, 
with purity control, simply won't help *at all*. You would still need to 
take more and more of it, to get the same result, and, in many cases, 
its the impurities that keeps it from killing you dead the first time 
you take it.

Point being, this is a bit like saying that alcohol should be classed 
the same as hemlock, since both are poisons, but as long as hemlock was 
properly regulated, and checked for purity, etc., it would be fine to 
sell it, like like alcohol. Its not the same thing. Pot, or even coca 
(before some idiot purified it into cocaine), is closer to alcohol in 
effect than it is to say, crack, which **should** stay illegal, since 
you can OD on some of that stuff just by taking it too fracking often, 
not just taking a bad dose.

I seriously hope you where just failing to make a proper distinction here.

>   * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such
> as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute).
The problem is, we are willing, based on moralizing, and "they are not 
victims, it was a choice", bullshit logic, to lock up *everyone*, from 
the dealers, to the guy that had a small back of the cheapest weed 
possible in his car. We make no distinction between which drug it was, 
whether they are a dealer or a user, and we spend probably less than 1% 
what we do to arrest people to **treat** them, so they don't use in 
jail, or keep using, after they get out. Worse, more than half of the 
"treatment" we respect in this country isn't medical, but bullshit like 
AA for druggies, which **doesn't work**, because it doesn't stop them 
wanting the drug, or even accept that it *is* medical, not religious, or 
cultural, or 100% about whether someone "chose" to do it. Imho, the 
idiots, like the moron pushing his, "Read the Bible and you will be 
cured of everything! Addictions have nothing to do with biology or 
science, or medicine!", types should be the ones in fracking jail.

>   * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you know
> most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some standard
> of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
For the sane drugs, definitely. Same can be said for more than a few 
other things, including prostitution, which we have never gotten rid of, 
but *have* turned into something where you can't get police protection, 
health care, or a safe work environment, but *may* instead get arrested, 
killed, hooked on drugs by the pimp, or even sold from one pimp to the 
next. All hail our, "moral" solution to the problem.

>   * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where
> money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services
> that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
> drinking)
>   * 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**. 
The guy breaking into someone's house to steal their TV, sell it for 
$10, and then break into 2-3 other places, to make up the remaining 
amount needed to buy their "fix", isn't some guy smoking pot, and they 
are not someone that is going to a) be off the drug when at work or b) 
smoking pot. They are going to be someone taking crack, who paid $2 for 
their first hit, $5 for the next one, $10 for the next, $20 for the 
next, and now, at this point, is robbing 4-5 people a day, so they can 
get 3-4 hits a day, because one hit won't do it any more. Purer product, 
as you suggest earlier, does nothing but make the initial hit worse, and 
escalate this process **faster**.

Pot and other drugs are *not* in the same category *at all*, 
biologically, chemically, effect wise, with respect to what danger they 
represent to the public, by the person taking them, etc, as the vast 
majority of the crap they have "engineered" to give massive highs. Its 
like comparing someone that likes holding up a lighter at concerts with 
someone whose obsessed with making, and lighting off, containers of 
napalm in random parking lots. No one that understands the difference, 
especially on a biochemical level, would claim we would be in *great 
shape* if we treated all of it the same, by decriminalizing it.

No, the problem the US has, is a 100% complete and total denial of how 
bad the problem **really is** with most of the drugs, the false 
perception that AA type programs work, (they actually fail at a rate of 
close to 90%), how barely more effective "real" rehab treatments are, at 
this point, (since they still rely on the idea you can just learn to 
avoid it, without fixing the chemical problems), and a complete and 
total refusal of most of the general populous to accept the idea that 
the solution to the problem may *require* something as extreme to 
"reset" the brain, as what screwed an addicts brain up in the first 
place. It is, in fact, the argument that has been made for *at least* 20 
years, maybe longer. "We **will not** allow you to research, or use, a 
drug, which has narcotic/psychodelic properties, to *cure* addiction to 
some other drug!" You can see this argument as far back as at least 
1976-1983, when the same, "Why can't they try this as a cure?", argument 
was being made on shows like Quincy, M.E., and some others. The reaction 
from most politicians, much of the public, etc., has been everything 
from, "We don't want something 'worse', like this, which people would 
might take as recreation, but isn't addictive.", to, "Why are you trying 
to cure addiction to drugs with drugs, instead of Jesus?", or similar 
idiocy. And, in all of it, is a perception that is no more rational than 
if 90% of the country told a guy that lost his leg in an accident, "You 
chose to do what lost lost you your leg, so stop whining about your 
'problem', and just walk already, why the hell should I help you by 
paying for a new leg!?"

-- 
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

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!"

Post a reply to this message

On 7/28/2010 5:21 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> Understand, I have never done drugs, I never intend to do drugs, and I
>> have no desire to do them. I personally wouldn't because I do think it
>> would be bad for me (in a number of ways). I come at this from a
>> standpoint of not having experienced anything related to the types of
>> drugs we're talking about (I once got pretty tripped out on Hydrocodone,
>> which I react very badly to, but that's a slightly different story
>> because it was something obtained with a prescription).
>>
>> If someone wants to be addicted to cigarettes, pot, alcohol, etc - as
>> long as they're not impacting me (through secondhand smoke, for example),
>> I don't care. They can knock themselves out. Once it leaves them, just
>> as with alcohol, then there are consequences and let the consequences be
>> steep (as they are for DUI, for example).
>>

Problem, as I maybe muddled a bit in the other post where I said this, 
is there are drugs, and then there are drugs.

You get mild ones, like pot, you get the harder ones, which you keep 
needing to take more and more of, but which are fairly tame, then you 
get into the stuff where the things you describe above are the "norm", 
for when the hit starts to wear off. Those later ones are not going to 
be "better" if you make any of it legal, or give out prescriptions, or 
build something like the old opium dens, to do it "safely", etc. About 
10% of the population have odd quirks in their biology that make them 
able to take "most" of this stuff, and walk away without needing it 
again. On the other end is the 10% that will drop dead, the first time 
they take something, the rest are like someone who intentionally jammed 
their foot in a wood chipper, because someone said it would be fun, and 
societies reaction, as a whole, to those people ranges from, "Pray and 
it will grow back, but don't go to them damn doctors.", to, "Why should 
the state use my money to give you an artificial foot, or therapy, its 
your own damn fault!" Problem with this idiot way of looking at the 
problem is, of course, if there where thousands of people missing feet, 
all over the place, it *might* just have an impact of everyone else's 
well being and safety, thus making both the "do nothing, its all in your 
mind" people, and the, "I won't pay for it!", people, all complete 
idiots. But, then.. I suppose you could just fix the problem by throwing 
everyone that is missing a foot in jail. It would be so much easier, 
even if it costs 500 times as much.

-- 
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 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:21:43 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Problem, as I maybe muddled a bit in the other post where I said this,
> is there are drugs, and then there are drugs.

Sure, I don't know that I would be for legalization of heroin or crack 
cocaine.

> You get mild ones, like pot, you get the harder ones, which you keep
> needing to take more and more of, but which are fairly tame, then you
> get into the stuff where the things you describe above are the "norm",
> for when the hit starts to wear off. 

I don't know though that I buy the argument about "gateway drugs".  From 
my perspective, it's about personal responsibility and self-control.

> Those later ones are not going to
> be "better" if you make any of it legal, or give out prescriptions, or
> build something like the old opium dens, to do it "safely", etc. About
> 10% of the population have odd quirks in their biology that make them
> able to take "most" of this stuff, and walk away without needing it
> again. On the other end is the 10% that will drop dead, the first time
> they take something, the rest are like someone who intentionally jammed
> their foot in a wood chipper, because someone said it would be fun, and
> societies reaction, as a whole, to those people ranges from, "Pray and
> it will grow back, but don't go to them damn doctors.", to, "Why should
> the state use my money to give you an artificial foot, or therapy, its
> your own damn fault!" Problem with this idiot way of looking at the
> problem is, of course, if there where thousands of people missing feet,
> all over the place, it *might* just have an impact of everyone else's
> well being and safety, thus making both the "do nothing, its all in your
> mind" people, and the, "I won't pay for it!", people, all complete
> idiots. But, then.. I suppose you could just fix the problem by throwing
> everyone that is missing a foot in jail. It would be so much easier,
> even if it costs 500 times as much.

Or you could hold people accountable for their personal decisions.  They 
stick their foot in the woodchipper, fine, but that injury isn't covered 
by insurance because it's self-inflicted (for example).  Action and 
consequence.

And yes, that would have an impact on their immediate family.  Again, 
that's a consequence of their action.  My family member who went to 
prison for his DUI offense had consequences for his actions as well, and 
they affected more than him.  That's life, and he's accepted those 
consequences.

It bothers me greatly that people think there should be no consequences 
for what they do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>>   * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental
>> overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next
>> is overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).
> Uh.. Sorry, but this is total bull. **Most** drugs need to stay illegal.

I agree that some do, and I mentioned a couple in another thread.

> They have no medical use, their effects require you keep taking higher
> doses to get the same effect, due to how they mangle your brain
> chemistry, they often do serious long term damage, and they create a
> danger to the public that, even more than alcohol, which you need to
> drink a fair amount of first, even a single dose causes for the drug.

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.

> More to the point, overdose is caused as much by the need to keep
> increasing dosage as it is by the effects of addins. A consistent dose,
> with purity control, simply won't help *at all*. You would still need to
> take more and more of it, to get the same result, and, in many cases,
> its the impurities that keeps it from killing you dead the first time
> you take it.

That depends, I imagine, on the individual and their own sense of self-
control.  To wit, not everyone who takes crack ends up dead of it.

> I seriously hope you where just failing to make a proper distinction
> here.

Perhaps.

>>   * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses
>>   (such
>> as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute).
> The problem is, we are willing, based on moralizing, and "they are not
> victims, it was a choice", bullshit logic, to lock up *everyone*, from
> the dealers, to the guy that had a small back of the cheapest weed
> possible in his car. We make no distinction between which drug it was,
> whether they are a dealer or a user, and we spend probably less than 1%
> what we do to arrest people to **treat** them, so they don't use in
> jail, or keep using, after they get out. 

Totally agreed.  We have a serious meth problem here in Utah (the court 
case I was on the jury for was about that, actually).

> Worse, more than half of the
> "treatment" we respect in this country isn't medical, but bullshit like
> AA for druggies, which **doesn't work**, because it doesn't stop them
> wanting the drug, or even accept that it *is* medical, not religious, or
> cultural, or 100% about whether someone "chose" to do it. Imho, the
> idiots, like the moron pushing his, "Read the Bible and you will be
> cured of everything! Addictions have nothing to do with biology or
> science, or medicine!", types should be the ones in fracking jail.

"Frakking".  Derived from "Frak".  We've been over that before. <scnr>

Seriously, though, I would tend to agree up to the "put the religion 
pushers in jail" bit.

>>   * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you
>>   know
>> most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some
>> standard of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
> For the sane drugs, definitely. Same can be said for more than a few
> other things, including prostitution, which we have never gotten rid of,
> but *have* turned into something where you can't get police protection,
> health care, or a safe work environment, but *may* instead get arrested,
> killed, hooked on drugs by the pimp, or even sold from one pimp to the
> next. All hail our, "moral" solution to the problem.

Agreed as well.

>>   * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from
>>   where
>> money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services
>> that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
>> drinking)

Maybe where you are, not in Utah.  Tax dollars fund the police 
department, who get called out when a druggie is whacked out and acting 
out.

>>   * 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.

> The guy breaking into someone's house to steal their TV, sell it for
> $10, and then break into 2-3 other places, to make up the remaining
> amount needed to buy their "fix", isn't some guy smoking pot, and they
> are not someone that is going to a) be off the drug when at work or b)
> smoking pot. They are going to be someone taking crack, who paid $2 for
> their first hit, $5 for the next one, $10 for the next, $20 for the
> next, and now, at this point, is robbing 4-5 people a day, so they can
> get 3-4 hits a day, because one hit won't do it any more. Purer product,
> as you suggest earlier, does nothing but make the initial hit worse, and
> escalate this process **faster**.

And you arrest the guy breaking into someone's house to steal their TV 
for burglary/larceny.  Lock 'em up, put 'em in jail.  They've done 
something that actually affects someone else.  Same for the guy tweaking 
out who assaults someone.  The guy sitting in his home stoned off his ass 
on LSD, mushrooms, or pot isn't.  Hell, even the guy doing crack who 
isn't out committing crimes against other people isn't harming anyone but 
himself - until he needs to get his fix and he can't afford it so he 
steals a car.  Then you book him on grand theft auto.  Simple.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28/07/2010 6:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>   Pot?  Gives one the munchies (so
> I'm told).
>

It might do that indeed ;-)

>> >  If you tell some people that
>> >  something is not allowed then that will make it exciting and glamorous
>> >  to them. Prohibition did not work in the USA and the “war on drugs” is
>> >  IMO a waste of time and resources.
> Exactly.  But don't get me started on the whole phraseology of "the war
> on 'x'", because I think the whole idea is stupid.  A war is something
> that*should*  be winnable, and you can't win against a concept.
>

Again, we are in agreement.

>> >  Consider the Netherlands where pot while not legal is controlled and
>> >  sold in coffee shops. This has not made the Dutch into a nation of pot
>> >  heads. Most Dutch people I’ve met and worked with are quite dismissive
>> >  of cannabis, it’s what you try when you are young.
> Yep.  There's no mystery, no sense of "I'm doing something bad/wrong" or
> "I'm getting away with something I shouldn't be", and the mystique and/or
> novelty wears off as a result.
>
> It's the same reason many kids try cigarettes when they're in High School
> (or earlier) here in the US:  They're not allowed to.  So they rebel and
> do it behind the school while nobody's watching.   Oooooo, dangerous.
> You're SUCH a bad boy.

True :-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 29/07/2010 12:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> >>     * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental
>>> >>  overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next
>>> >>  is overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).
>> >  Uh.. Sorry, but this is total bull. **Most** drugs need to stay illegal.
> I agree that some do, and I mentioned a couple in another thread.
>

I was going to ask why. Why not make all drugs legal and let the sad 
ones “stone” themselves out of the reproductive cycle. But then I 
thought of penicillin and the like. We don’t want to allow people to 
take that when they feel like it.

BTW Just a minute starts on Monday


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:51:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 29/07/2010 12:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>>> >>     * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer
>>>> >>     accidental
>>>> >>  overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the
>>>> >>  next is overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).
>>> >  Uh.. Sorry, but this is total bull. **Most** drugs need to stay
>>> >  illegal.
>> I agree that some do, and I mentioned a couple in another thread.
>>
>>
> I was going to ask why. Why not make all drugs legal and let the sad
> ones “stone” themselves out of the reproductive cycle. But then I
> thought of penicillin and the like. We don’t want to allow people to
> take that when they feel like it.

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.

> BTW Just a minute starts on Monday

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/28/2010 4:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> They have no medical use, their effects require you keep taking higher
>> doses to get the same effect, due to how they mangle your brain
>> chemistry, they often do serious long term damage, and they create a
>> danger to the public that, even more than alcohol, which you need to
>> drink a fair amount of first, even a single dose causes for the drug.
>
> 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.

>> Worse, more than half of the
>> "treatment" we respect in this country isn't medical, but bullshit like
>> AA for druggies, which **doesn't work**, because it doesn't stop them
>> wanting the drug, or even accept that it *is* medical, not religious, or
>> cultural, or 100% about whether someone "chose" to do it. Imho, the
>> idiots, like the moron pushing his, "Read the Bible and you will be
>> cured of everything! Addictions have nothing to do with biology or
>> science, or medicine!", types should be the ones in fracking jail.
>
> "Frakking".  Derived from "Frak".  We've been over that before.<scnr>
>
> Seriously, though, I would tend to agree up to the "put the religion
> pushers in jail" bit.
>
I use it as an example, since the number of high profile wackos pushing 
cures for everything from drugs to homosexuality, none of which actually 
really work, who use religion as the "corner stone" of their supposed 
cure is pretty high. It could just as easily be people pushing 
acupuncture cures, or fake medicines, or Reiki treatment, or gluing 
magnets to your body, or what ever. The difference is, most of those 
later ones do not a) have national TV ads pushing their, "Don't listen 
to the medical people, they don't know nothing, buy my book!", while 
ignoring the dismal 95% failure rate they get (same as the number that 
fail to quit without buying their stupid book), or, worse, actually 
convincing entire groups of people to reject medicine entirely, like the 
ones in Oregon. I think they are now up to something like 15 dead kids, 
with one just recently reported in the news as having somehow actually 
ended up in state custody, unlike all the others, which where dead 
before the state had any chance to intervene... These people don't just 
have a quirky idea about how the world works, they are a danger to 
others, including anyone who might, say, end up in an accident some 
place, and only have a bunch of these morons there to "pray over them", 
in instead of calling an ambulance. Frankly, even most of the other con 
artists, and altie-med types are not *that* disconnected from reality. 
But, they still lie about their products, and only get by with it by 
calling it either "suppliments", thus bypassing the FDA, or "religion", 
thus placing it in a privileged category, which no one is allowed to 
challenge. Imho, they are all criminals, or mad, which means they should 
be jailed, or given mental health treatment, not patted on the hand and 
told, "Don't listen to the mean old person that doesn't believe you." 
Anyone in the "real" world tried to sell the stuff they do, or push the 
"cures" they do, without mislabeling it, to keep it out of the feds 
hands, or claiming that the great and mighty Thor bless it first, they 
would be seeing jail time.

>>>    * 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.

>> The guy breaking into someone's house to steal their TV, sell it for
>> $10, and then break into 2-3 other places, to make up the remaining
>> amount needed to buy their "fix", isn't some guy smoking pot, and they
>> are not someone that is going to a) be off the drug when at work or b)
>> smoking pot. They are going to be someone taking crack, who paid $2 for
>> their first hit, $5 for the next one, $10 for the next, $20 for the
>> next, and now, at this point, is robbing 4-5 people a day, so they can
>> get 3-4 hits a day, because one hit won't do it any more. Purer product,
>> as you suggest earlier, does nothing but make the initial hit worse, and
>> escalate this process **faster**.
>
> And you arrest the guy breaking into someone's house to steal their TV
> for burglary/larceny.  Lock 'em up, put 'em in jail.  They've done
> something that actually affects someone else.  Same for the guy tweaking
> out who assaults someone.  The guy sitting in his home stoned off his ass
> on LSD, mushrooms, or pot isn't.  Hell, even the guy doing crack who
> isn't out committing crimes against other people isn't harming anyone but
> himself - until he needs to get his fix and he can't afford it so he
> steals a car.  Then you book him on grand theft auto.  Simple.
>
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. This is almost like the 
goofy libertarian idea of the "invisible hand" you always get, which 
goes like, "Its wrong to have laws, regulations, and standards in place 
to **tell you** a company what it can and can't do, without proof it has 
or will do any of those things, but you damn well better step in and 
stop it **if** they do, even though by getting rid of all those other 
things, we just stripped the government of any right or ability to stop 
them, when a company does do something wrong." It can't work that way. 
You look at the statistical reality of the situation and conclude that 
those seeking something have a high odds of being the ones to take 
criminal action, and, if it constitutes something that could endanger 
others as well (unless you suggest locking their doors, from the 
outside, so they don't get the idea to stop tweaking in their house, and 
wander into the street, or try to drive, stoned, to the mall), you need 
to prevent the conditions that lead to the dangers, not just wait until 
they actually *do* injure someone, or steal property.

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.

> Jim


-- 
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 7/28/2010 3:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:21:43 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Problem, as I maybe muddled a bit in the other post where I said this,
>> is there are drugs, and then there are drugs.
>
> Sure, I don't know that I would be for legalization of heroin or crack
> cocaine.
>
>> You get mild ones, like pot, you get the harder ones, which you keep
>> needing to take more and more of, but which are fairly tame, then you
>> get into the stuff where the things you describe above are the "norm",
>> for when the hit starts to wear off.
>
> I don't know though that I buy the argument about "gateway drugs".  From
> my perspective, it's about personal responsibility and self-control.
>
Gateway drugs are bullshit. That "hypothesis" was that you take X and 
end up taking Y to get higher later. Its pure nonsense. What I am 
talking about is taking less than half an ounce, and, depending on your 
personal biology, having to have a full ounce **of the same thing**, a 
few years later, or having to take it several times a day, or "both". I 
am talking about people taking stuff where the withdrawal can kill you, 
without proper controls, and not being on it makes you more dangerous 
than being stoned, but you are useless in "either" condition.

>> Those later ones are not going to
>> be "better" if you make any of it legal, or give out prescriptions, or
>> build something like the old opium dens, to do it "safely", etc. About
>> 10% of the population have odd quirks in their biology that make them
>> able to take "most" of this stuff, and walk away without needing it
>> again. On the other end is the 10% that will drop dead, the first time
>> they take something, the rest are like someone who intentionally jammed
>> their foot in a wood chipper, because someone said it would be fun, and
>> societies reaction, as a whole, to those people ranges from, "Pray and
>> it will grow back, but don't go to them damn doctors.", to, "Why should
>> the state use my money to give you an artificial foot, or therapy, its
>> your own damn fault!" Problem with this idiot way of looking at the
>> problem is, of course, if there where thousands of people missing feet,
>> all over the place, it *might* just have an impact of everyone else's
>> well being and safety, thus making both the "do nothing, its all in your
>> mind" people, and the, "I won't pay for it!", people, all complete
>> idiots. But, then.. I suppose you could just fix the problem by throwing
>> everyone that is missing a foot in jail. It would be so much easier,
>> even if it costs 500 times as much.
>
> Or you could hold people accountable for their personal decisions.  They
> stick their foot in the woodchipper, fine, but that injury isn't covered
> by insurance because it's self-inflicted (for example).  Action and
> consequence.
>
> And yes, that would have an impact on their immediate family.  Again,
> that's a consequence of their action.  My family member who went to
> prison for his DUI offense had consequences for his actions as well, and
> they affected more than him.  That's life, and he's accepted those
> consequences.
>
> It bothers me greatly that people think there should be no consequences
> for what they do.
>
The problem here is, making them take responsibility doesn't solve the 
damn problem. They did it. Now they are stuck with the problem, and no, 
the consequences *may* extend beyond their immediate family. Lets say it 
was loss of hearing, or blindness, or some other thing. Its not about if 
there are consequences. Most people have no damn clue how *big* the 
consequences can be, figure that most of what people are telling them 
are lies, since they can't imagine it being as bad as described, they 
may have the perception that others are doing it, so they should, and a 
whole host of other things. 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.

It is, on some level, right up there with cutting someone's hand off, as 
punishment for stealing a single fig from someone's fruit cart. People 
are not willing to stop at punishing them for what they *did* do, or 
recognizing that the consequences are *already* more than they can 
imagine, they feel they have to keep punishing these people, even to the 
point of refusing to help keep them from falling back into using, based 
on one, single, initial mistake. And that is just idiocy.

Fixing the problem isn't going to come from telling someone that has 
*lost* most of their ability to avoid being tempted, but is rather 
permanently feeling tempted now, that they need to show "more self 
control". Most of us normal, non-drug using, people have no damn clue 
what that word actually means. We just assume its like waking up and 
picking between whether to wear underwear or not, before going to work, 
and we imagine the consequence to be not much worse than having to not 
make the *wrong* mistake again, having opted for not wearing any, then 
splitting our pants, or some similar "choice".

The whole point of the "lost a foot" analogy is to point out that, once 
the choice is made, it doesn't matter what help you give them, or how 
often, etc., they live with the consequences, every single day of their 
lives, forever, short of finding a way to cure the actual chemical 
dependence, which never goes away. You can either treat them like 
someone worth help, or you can treat them like shit. Which solution do 
you imagine will help them avoid losing control again?

-- 
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 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?

>>>>    * 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.

> 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.

> 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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:53:20 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> What I am
> talking about is taking less than half an ounce, and, depending on your
> personal biology, having to have a full ounce **of the same thing**, a
> few years later, or having to take it several times a day, or "both". I
> am talking about people taking stuff where the withdrawal can kill you,
> without proper controls, and not being on it makes you more dangerous
> than being stoned, but you are useless in "either" condition.

And as a controlled substance, access would be significantly harder now 
than it is on the black market.  But again, personal responsibility is 
key.

>> It bothers me greatly that people think there should be no consequences
>> for what they do.
>>
> The problem here is, making them take responsibility doesn't solve the
> damn problem. 

So, if the person who sticks their foot in the wood chipper takes 
responsibility for their stupid mistake, they're going to repeat it?  I 
don't buy that - if they do, they didn't learn the first time, and maybe 
the lesson needs to be repeated.  I'm not a fan of protecting people from 
themselves.

> They did it. Now they are stuck with the problem, and no,
> the consequences *may* extend beyond their immediate family. Lets say it
> was loss of hearing, or blindness, or some other thing. Its not about if
> there are consequences. Most people have no damn clue how *big* the
> consequences can be, figure that most of what people are telling them
> are lies, since they can't imagine it being as bad as described, they
> may have the perception that others are doing it, so they should, and a
> whole host of other things. 

Yep, life can suck that way.  Nobody said life was safe.  I used to ride 
my bike as a kid without a helmet - and I went over the handlebars more 
than once.  Then I learned not to ride in a way that was dangerous, and I 
stopped going over the handlebars.  Imagine that - a member of the human 
race learned that to be safe, one has to act in a manner which is safe.

> 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.

> It is, on some level, right up there with cutting someone's hand off, as
> punishment for stealing a single fig from someone's fruit cart. People
> are not willing to stop at punishing them for what they *did* do, or
> recognizing that the consequences are *already* more than they can
> imagine, they feel they have to keep punishing these people, even to the
> point of refusing to help keep them from falling back into using, based
> on one, single, initial mistake. And that is just idiocy.

No, that's life.  People who don't learn lessons from life are going to 
have the lesson repeated until they do learn.  The idiocy is in not 
letting people make mistakes in order to learn from them.

Look at all the people like me who have decided drugs aren't for them.  
We didn't have to make a mistake to learn that lesson.  We just had to 
learn from others' mistakes.  Some people can learn that way.  Some 
people refuse to believe that anything bad can happen to do them, and 
will not believe so until something bad *does* happen to them.  Sucks for 
them, but eventually they'll learn.

> The whole point of the "lost a foot" analogy is to point out that, once
> the choice is made, it doesn't matter what help you give them, or how
> often, etc., they live with the consequences, every single day of their
> lives, forever, short of finding a way to cure the actual chemical
> dependence, which never goes away. You can either treat them like
> someone worth help, or you can treat them like shit. Which solution do
> you imagine will help them avoid losing control again?

We all have to live with our choices every day.  I may choose to play 
football rather than to be working on studying for a test.  If I fail the 
test, I may not get the job I want.  That's my choice, and it could be a 
choice that affects me for the rest of my life.  That's what life is:  
making choices.  Some people make good choices, some people make bad 
choices.  Some people who make good choices have bad things happen as a 
result; some people who make bad choices do very well.  No guarantees in 
this life about fairness.

Jim

Post a reply to this message