 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4c50ac45$1@news.povray.org...
>A little rabbit is running happily through the forest when he stumbles upon
>a giraffe rolling a joint.
>
> The rabbit looks at the giraffe and says, "Giraffe my friend, why do you
> do this? Come. Run with me through the forest! You'll feel so much
> better!"
>
> The giraffe looks at him, looks at the joint, tosses it and goes off
> running with the rabbit. Then they come across an elephant doing coke.
>
> So the rabbit again says, "Elephant my friend, why do you do this? Think
> about your health. Come. Run with us through the pretty forest, you'll
> see, you'll feel so good!"
>
> The elephant looks at them, looks at his razor, mirror and coke, then
> tosses them and starts running with the rabbit and giraffe. The three
> animals then come across a lion about to shoot up.
>
> "Lion my friend, why do you do this? Think about your health! Come. Run
> with us through the beautiful forest and you'll feel so good!" The lion
> looks at him, puts down his needle, and mauls the rabbit.
>
> The giraffe and elephant watch in horror and look at him and ask, "Lion,
> why did you do this? He was merely trying to help you."
>
> The lion answers, "That little bastard! He makes me run around the forest
> like a f'ing idiot every time he's on ecstasy!"
LOL!
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/07/2010 5:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yep. Making them legal doesn't mean make then uncontrolled. Today if I
> want to buy cough syrup with codeine in it, I have to provide information
> to the pharmacy (even for stuff that used to be over the counter) because
> large quantities of codeine can be used to make crystal meth.
>
> That's a perfectly reasonable control.
>
Yes, my doctor has given me a prescription for 200 paracetamol. Not that
they can be used for recreation purposes but so a pharmacist will sell
them to me in that quantity. Because of the danger of overdose
pharmacists can only sell about 30 at a time to one person.
>> BTW Just a minute starts on Monday
>
> :-)
>
My pleasure.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/07/2010 9:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as caffeine.
Caffeine is quite addictive and a lot of people are addicted but it is
easy to withdraw from.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:56:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/07/2010 9:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as caffeine.
>
> Caffeine is quite addictive and a lot of people are addicted but it is
> easy to withdraw from.
Indeed, though I think it was Patrick who said that, not I. ;-)
I've had caffeine addiction before, but like you said, it's pretty easy
to withdraw from. I sometimes go months without any and then it's time
for a Coke. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:49:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> Yes, my doctor has given me a prescription for 200 paracetamol. Not that
> they can be used for recreation purposes but so a pharmacist will sell
> them to me in that quantity. Because of the danger of overdose
> pharmacists can only sell about 30 at a time to one person.
Yeah, I know it's similar here for larger doses of Tylenol.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/25/2010 12:53 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've heard of drugs that give you energy, make you calm, numb pain or
> make you see plastercine porters with looking-glass ties. But I've never
> heard of a chemical which actually makes you feel *happy*.
Stimulants. OK, well... it won't make you happy... but it will make you
energetic.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/29/2010 1:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:32:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2010 4:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> PMFA, but where did you get your medical degree from? If you're going
>>> to make assertions like that, I'd like to see them backed up by some
>>> sort of credentials that show you have some expertise in the field.
>>> (And before you ask, no, I don't have such expertise). Or a cite from
>>> a reputable source would suffice as well.
>>>
>> You don't need a medical degree to read articles on the effects of these
>> things, and no, I don't have, or remember, the specific magazines, or
>> which issues.
>
> Fair enough, but are you certain you're not falling to confirmation bias?
>
How is, "Taking there chemicals does X, and we can test people that take
it and *show* that it does. Not to mention it never goes away, and every
medical professional says that the people they treat never lose the
addiction, they just learn to avoid every place, person, or thing that
helped trigger it.", qualify as confirmation bias? That is the point of
medical science, versus all the woo cures people shovel, you are
***required*** to show that its true, and verify the facts you are claiming.
>>>>> * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing
>>>>> violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today
>>>>>
>>>> No it won't. As I already said, 90% of the drugs out there make the
>>>> person need more, and more, and more, the longer they use them, its
>>>> the nature of the chemical process they work by. This, short of a
>>>> treatment like Ibogaine appears to provide, is **permanent** and
>>>> **cumulative**.
>>>
>>> Depends on the drug.
>>>
>> I did say most. And, as I pointed out, it also depends on the person's
>> own biology. Some people seem to be damn near completely immune to
>> addiction. Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as caffeine.
>
> So basically, people need to be protected from themselves? I don't buy
> that. Making mistakes is part of life, and not something people should
> be insulated from. Experience is one of the best teachers out there.
>
We protect people from themselves all the damn time. Everything from, "
"Don't drive drunk, or we will arrest you.", to, "You can't swim in the
sewage pond, so we put big warning signs and a fence around it.", to,
"You vehicle **must** have working turn signals.", etc., are all about
protecting not just the rest of the people, but the moron doing it.
Experience, **a lot of the time** won't teach you anything, because in
most of those cases you will be either dead, or permanently disabled, by
experiencing it. So, don't give me the whole, "We shouldn't protect
people from themselves.", BS. This is only true for the things *you*
think we shouldn't do that for. I am certain there are plenty of things
that you do think we should, a whole host of laws and rules to do so,
and like most people that want to treat drug use as a "special" category
of, "Stupid things people do to themselves.", you just don't like *it*
being in that category, for no reason that I, personal, can see as rational.
>> Sound all well and good, but you are presuming that the criminal system
>> always catches these people, and no one that is sitting at home doing
>> that didn't do anything wrong to get their hit.
>
> I'm presuming nothing. I meet about once a month with a representative
> of the SLC police department, and he and I have very interesting chats
> about how police work is actually done and how effective it is.
>
> One of the things I take away from the conversations time and again is
> that if they didn't have to spend so much time dealing with non-violent
> offenders, they might actually be able to catch more people committing
> crimes against people& property.
>
I don't dispute that, and have said so, but the problem is that you are
classing people that are, "not in their right minds", by choice or
otherwise, in the same category as, "non-violent", in some cases. We
also prefer to arrest someone who is intentionally acting in a way that
*could* cause someone else harm. As I said, people on certain drugs do
not just all, "sit around at home, being stoned", they go places, they
do it in public, they get into their heads, while in a state of mind
where they *can't* make rational decisions, to do things that get
themselves and others killed. By your logic, it would be perfectly fine
to let mental patients out, even if classed as, "potentially dangerous",
because that particular day they are not "acting" dangerous, never mind
that they could turn at any moment, due to their condition.
As for effectiveness.. Watched something a while back on the subject of
law enforcement and we have two **huge** problems - 1) forensic
techniques that are "assumed" to be scientific, but have never been
tested under those conditions, and 2) a tendency of far too many labs to
"focus", not on where the evidence leads, like on CSI, but on who the
district attorney says they "suspect" committed something, thereby
sidelining everything from the evidence collection, to evidence
examination, to the *much* sloppier, and less precise, piecing together
of that evidence, to form a theory on what took place, and who did it.
End result - lot of people never get arrested at all, and a lot more
than should end up jailed. Finger prints, for example, are not as
certain as most people figure. The human method of comparing *can*
produce flawed results, and the computer version assumes that every
print on 3 billion people, will have completely different
characteristics, on some 50 comparison points, or the like. Neither is
"certain", or logically plausible, especially when, in many cases, you
often only have one print, and it may contain less than half of the data
points.
>> Any other way of looking at it only appears *sane* if you assume neither
>> you, nor anyone you know, will *ever* be the victim. Which one could
>> argue is either arrogant, or stupid.
>
> Nobody every said life was safe. Or fair.
>
> Jim
No, but one of the functions of society is to make it safer, and at
least try to make it fairer (even if some people still seem to want to
make it as unfair as possible, but that is a whole other issue..)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2010 2:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/07/2010 9:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as caffeine.
>
> Caffeine is quite addictive and a lot of people are addicted but it is
> easy to withdraw from.
>
Which makes a huge difference. Mind, one of the things that makes it
easy to withdraw from **is** the fact that it doesn't have an effect so
massive that it permanently changes brain chemistry. Maybe we need a
different definition. Addictive means - you would have some level of
withdrawal from it. ??? means - You can't ever completely withdraw from
it at all, and your attempt to do so will be long, painful, and incomplete.
Part of the problem in many of these things is that we end up using the
same word to describe things that, while they make work similarly, can
have **drastically** different impacts. Its like someone with MS. I had
a teacher with that, and up until a few months before it killed him, he
*seemed* completely normal. There was a friend of the family who had a
kid with it too, and he was semi-normal, up until about 10-12, then, by
the time he was 15 or so he was in a wheel chair, barely able to speak,
etc. Same condition, completely different results. Addiction is like
that. All addiction works much the same, but *some* forms of it are
severely debilitating, and leave lasting scares, which someone opting to
drink soda pop, instead of taking crack, **doesn't have to worry
about**, even if, in principle, the result uses the same word to
describe it.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Me, I've never really figured out the difference between "addictive" and
"habituating".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/29/2010 2:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Even the ones that try to get off it,
>> because they realize they made a mistake, are stuck in a situation where
>> they are **permanently** wanting to stick their foot in the wood chipper
>> again. Their brain chemistry has changed, and they can't **stop**
>> wanting to *ever*. I would say that *that* is a pretty damn big
>> consequence, in and of itself, without all the other garbage people drop
>> in their laps, including the, often, complete destruction of their
>> lives, which just make it all that more tempting to give in to the need
>> they can't ever get rid of.
>
> Yep. Sucks, don't it? At the point where they're wanting to continue,
> someone certainly can intervene (and many people do). But consider this
> as well - that person who's so hooked they're going to get their fix
> however they can is going to break some other law in order to do so, and
> land themselves in jail. They don't allow drugs in jail (and the types
> of drugs we're talking about, they shouldn't allow), so they get a chance
> to be rehabilitated.
>
Man are you clueless. One of the **biggest** problems in US jails, other
than putting killers in with people that did lesser offenses, and people
killing each other, as a result, is that they **still** find ways to
smuggle the drugs in, and most jails tend to be run by people, operating
under rules written by people, who are even bigger hard asses about this
than you are, and **Do not believe** in wasting money on "any" kind of
rehab, beyond absolutely necessary to keep someone from dying from it.
No rehab for drugs, no rehab for their behavior, no rehab for
"anything". The #1 reason why you get so many religious groups in them,
peddling their version of rehab, is because the state won't spend a
dime, either to make sure the rehab they do get is actually effective
(and, as I said, the woo based stuff, whether its drug addiction, or
robbery prevention, has a shitty recidivism rate), never mind on
providing any alternative. The view point of the people that think
jailing everyone in sight, and who manage to end up running these
programs, and deciding what is funded, is that "no one" in there
deserves *anything*. The fact that this has turned most of them into
revolving doors, or worse, trade shows for more effective means of
hiding drugs, selling drugs, robbing buildings, scamming people out of
money, etc., they simply deny, completely.
We are dealing with a justice system, whose "solution", more often than
not, is not too far different from the old days when England simply
dumped every malcontent that wasn't useful to them on Australia, with a
small handful of troops to keep them away from the port, and said, "We
wash our hands of you." The last time anyone even seriously talked about
"real" rehab in jails the reaction was, "Just let in more priests.", the
state can't afford to do anything.
Its *exactly* the same idiot logic as you get with immigration. One side
says, "Throw them all out, arrest everyone in sight, and don't let them
back in.", the other side says, "OK, but what about the ones that
actually have businesses, have lived here for more than 10 years, have
kids, etc., and are **not** on welfare, like you accuse them of?", to
which the other side replies, "Deport them too, we don't give a damn!
You people just want them all to stay here!"
You tell someone, "We need effective rehab, both for drug use and other
behaviors in our jails.", the other side's reaction is **always**, "Why
the hell should we waste money on any of them?" The reply is, "Because
they will be out of jail at some point, in which case, as things stand,
they will still be doing the same things, only now you let them get more
dangerous, because you didn't want to do a damn thing to help them find
a better solution." The reply is **always**, "So, make the sentence
longer. If they never get out of jail, we don't have to worry about them
being worse when they get out!"
The stupidity of the system we are using, and the blind refusal to
recognize that its more complex than one side makes it, and we need to
solve *all* of the problems, not just the ones that make it "look" like
they are protecting the public, is complete fracking madness. Europe
seems to get this. The US, has half its population with its heads up
their asses, and thus, it just gets worse and worse. And part of that is
this perception that, "Individual responsibility", somehow trumps all,
if its something like drug use, but, too many of the people making this
claim, not that you do, but **way** too many of them, immediately blame
everyone else for *their* mistakes, when they make them, and no one
seems to grasp that "sometimes", to have a safe, sane, and stable
society, there has to be a recognition that some people need **help**,
and that giving it to them is better for everyone, not just the guy that
some jerk thinks should be allowed to do anything they like, with the
only consequence always being to tell them, "Screw you, we won't help you!"
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:39:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 7/29/2010 1:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:32:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2010 4:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> PMFA, but where did you get your medical degree from? If you're
>>>> going to make assertions like that, I'd like to see them backed up by
>>>> some sort of credentials that show you have some expertise in the
>>>> field. (And before you ask, no, I don't have such expertise). Or a
>>>> cite from a reputable source would suffice as well.
>>>>
>>> You don't need a medical degree to read articles on the effects of
>>> these things, and no, I don't have, or remember, the specific
>>> magazines, or which issues.
>>
>> Fair enough, but are you certain you're not falling to confirmation
>> bias?
>>
> How is, "Taking there chemicals does X, and we can test people that take
> it and *show* that it does. Not to mention it never goes away, and every
> medical professional says that the people they treat never lose the
> addiction, they just learn to avoid every place, person, or thing that
> helped trigger it.", qualify as confirmation bias?
Assumption: You're only reading sources that agree with something you
already think. Again, just a question.
>>> I did say most. And, as I pointed out, it also depends on the person's
>>> own biology. Some people seem to be damn near completely immune to
>>> addiction. Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as
>>> caffeine.
>>
>> So basically, people need to be protected from themselves? I don't buy
>> that. Making mistakes is part of life, and not something people should
>> be insulated from. Experience is one of the best teachers out there.
>>
> We protect people from themselves all the damn time. Everything from, "
> "Don't drive drunk, or we will arrest you.",
That's protecting the public, not the individual.
> to, "You can't swim in the
> sewage pond, so we put big warning signs and a fence around it.",
That's perhaps the best example.
> to,
> "You vehicle **must** have working turn signals.",
That's about the public, not the individual. My turn signal doesn't tell
me anything, it's a way of telling others what you're about to do.
> etc., are all about
> protecting not just the rest of the people, but the moron doing it.
I disagree.
> Experience, **a lot of the time** won't teach you anything, because in
> most of those cases you will be either dead, or permanently disabled, by
> experiencing it. So, don't give me the whole, "We shouldn't protect
> people from themselves.", BS. This is only true for the things *you*
> think we shouldn't do that for. I am certain there are plenty of things
> that you do think we should, a whole host of laws and rules to do so,
> and like most people that want to treat drug use as a "special" category
> of, "Stupid things people do to themselves.", you just don't like *it*
> being in that category, for no reason that I, personal, can see as
> rational.
Sure, and if I drive my car into a tree and die as a result, that's my
own fault (assuming I was in control at the time, of course). When I
broke my leg rollerblading, the other person was scared out of her mind
that I was going to sue - so much so, that she sent a friend over to
apologise to me. I told her to tell her friend that while she was going
the wrong way in the rink, it was my own fault because I shouldn't have
been on a rink with *experienced* people (and designated as a "speed
rink" my second time out on rollerblades.
Most people would've been looking for a lawyer. I was injured, I had a
broken leg. It was my own damned fault and nobody else's.
It inconvenienced me and it inconvenienced my family. That's the price
we all paid. <shrug> That's life.
>>> Sound all well and good, but you are presuming that the criminal
>>> system always catches these people, and no one that is sitting at home
>>> doing that didn't do anything wrong to get their hit.
>>
>> I'm presuming nothing. I meet about once a month with a representative
>> of the SLC police department, and he and I have very interesting chats
>> about how police work is actually done and how effective it is.
>>
>> One of the things I take away from the conversations time and again is
>> that if they didn't have to spend so much time dealing with non-violent
>> offenders, they might actually be able to catch more people committing
>> crimes against people& property.
>>
> I don't dispute that, and have said so, but the problem is that you are
> classing people that are, "not in their right minds", by choice or
> otherwise, in the same category as, "non-violent", in some cases. We
> also prefer to arrest someone who is intentionally acting in a way that
> *could* cause someone else harm. As I said, people on certain drugs do
> not just all, "sit around at home, being stoned", they go places, they
> do it in public, they get into their heads, while in a state of mind
> where they *can't* make rational decisions, to do things that get
> themselves and others killed.
And when they get dangerous, they should be stopped.
> By your logic, it would be perfectly fine
> to let mental patients out, even if classed as, "potentially dangerous",
> because that particular day they are not "acting" dangerous, never mind
> that they could turn at any moment, due to their condition.
Um, no, that's something different. Someone who's schizophrenic is quite
different from someone who *voluntarily* takes crack cocaine. And now
you'll argue that the addiction makes it a compulsion, not voluntary, but
they voluntarily started taking it.
> As for effectiveness.. Watched something a while back on the subject of
> law enforcement and [...]
Interesting, but not really relevant to the discussion.
>>> 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.
>>
> No, but one of the functions of society is to make it safer, and at
> least try to make it fairer (even if some people still seem to want to
> make it as unfair as possible, but that is a whole other issue..)
There's safer and fairer when it's in the public interest, and then
there's "safer and fairer" which removes all the risk from life entirely,
and that latter removes the responsibility and consequences of actions
from individuals and places it on society. "It's not *my* fault I shot
the store clerk, it's *society's* fault that they didn't protect the
store clerk from me as effectively as they should have."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:10:39 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Man are you clueless.
Nice way to carry on a conversation, Patrick - start with argumentum ad
hominem. I'm outta here.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2010 9:47 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Which makes a huge difference. Mind, one of the things that makes it
> easy to withdraw from **is** the fact that it doesn't have an effect so
> massive that it permanently changes brain chemistry. Maybe we need a
> different definition. Addictive means - you would have some level of
> withdrawal from it. ??? means - You can't ever completely withdraw from
> it at all, and your attempt to do so will be long, painful, and incomplete.
>
Is there anything that you can’t withdraw from> I know that if you take
excess alcohol for a long enough period it does alter your brain and
organs permanently.
> Part of the problem in many of these things is that we end up using the
> same word to describe things that, while they make work similarly, can
> have **drastically** different impacts. Its like someone with MS. I had
> a teacher with that, and up until a few months before it killed him, he
> *seemed* completely normal. There was a friend of the family who had a
> kid with it too, and he was semi-normal, up until about 10-12, then, by
> the time he was 15 or so he was in a wheel chair, barely able to speak,
> etc. Same condition, completely different results. Addiction is like
> that. All addiction works much the same, but *some* forms of it are
> severely debilitating, and leave lasting scares, which someone opting to
> drink soda pop, instead of taking crack, **doesn't have to worry
> about**, even if, in principle, the result uses the same word to
> describe it.
True and as you said earlier drugs have different effects on different
people. I’m prescribed dihydrocodine which is addictive. But when I stop
taking it the only effect I get is that my skin itches, which is quite
easy for me to cope with. Other people get more severe symptoms. Having
said that, I don’t know if it is because I have built up a tolerance to
it. The first time I took 15 mg I was away with the fairies. Now I can
take 60 mg and all I feel is a bit buzzy and I talk a lot. I’m certainly
not dependant on it. Different strokes for different folks. :-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2010 9:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Me, I've never really figured out the difference between "addictive" and
> "habituating".
>
I think that we (in the UK) call it dependant. Not physically addicted
but mentally requiring it. Addicted means your body requires it to
function without withdrawal symptoms.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> but mentally requiring it.
And what does that *mean*? How can you "mentally require it" without a
physical change to your body?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2010 10:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> but mentally requiring it.
>
> And what does that *mean*? How can you "mentally require it" without a
> physical change to your body?
>
My laymans definition is: You like the effects of the drug so much you
want to keep taking it even if there are no physical withdrawal
symptoms. For instance as with grass or pot, you don’t get the heebie
jeebies when you stop taking it but some people can’t bring themselves
to stop. Even if it is ruining their lives.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:55:11 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> How can you "mentally require it" without a physical change to your
> body?
It's a habit, like some people who have a nervous twitch - they may not
even be aware that they're doing it, because it's just part of their
persona.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> My laymans definition is: You like the effects of the drug so much you
> want to keep taking it even if there are no physical withdrawal
> symptoms.
Yeah. I mean, I get that. I just don't know why there's a term for "good
drugs" that makes it sound awful. Why wouldn't you say anything you really
really like is "habituating"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2010 11:37 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> My laymans definition is: You like the effects of the drug so much you
>> want to keep taking it even if there are no physical withdrawal symptoms.
>
> Yeah. I mean, I get that. I just don't know why there's a term for "good
> drugs" that makes it sound awful. Why wouldn't you say anything you
> really really like is "habituating"?
>
You are speaking to the wrong person, here. "Habituating" is not a word
in British English we use dependency (if I follow you correctly).
I’m also a bit wary of the term “good drugs” I know that it is popular
to say things like good and bad bacteria but it is a bit misleading.
As an aside I was looking for a slang word for girls, polite you
understand. It was to replace guys which in the UK means only men. I
came across this site that may be amusing or as the case may be, not.
http://www.effingpot.com/slang.shtml
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> You are speaking to the wrong person, here. "Habituating" is not a word
> in British English we use dependency (if I follow you correctly).
I believe that's correct.
> I’m also a bit wary of the term “good drugs” I
know that it is popular
> to say things like good and bad bacteria but it is a bit misleading.
I mean "good" as in "you like it so much you want more." I don't say th
at
fat people have a dependency on Big Macs. I'm trying to figure out what t
he
difference between (say) pot and something people get a dependency on, gi
ven
that lots and lots of people here are in jail because they can't keep
themselves from smoking pot in places they'll get caught. So why isn't th
at
a dependency?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2010 2:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> You don't need a medical degree to read articles on the effects of
>>>> these things, and no, I don't have, or remember, the specific
>>>> magazines, or which issues.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, but are you certain you're not falling to confirmation
>>> bias?
>>>
>> How is, "Taking there chemicals does X, and we can test people that take
>> it and *show* that it does. Not to mention it never goes away, and every
>> medical professional says that the people they treat never lose the
>> addiction, they just learn to avoid every place, person, or thing that
>> helped trigger it.", qualify as confirmation bias?
>
> Assumption: You're only reading sources that agree with something you
> already think. Again, just a question.
>
I am using reading sources that agree with the medical community, many
of which have to deal with the problems caused, not necessarily the
actual rehab, and others of which deal, quite clinically, with the
chemistry involved, without dealing directly with people at all (except
in some cases, to confirm their findings, after concluding that the
effect exists). Why are we throwing out ever neurochemist, neurologist,
biochemist, etc., in favor of, "Someone else says this isn't true, and
they have a clinic that charges $5,000 a session, for (Insert Woo)
Therapy, and a list of all the patients that claim it helped them, sans
all the vast majority it didn't, to back them up." As someone once said,
the plural of anecdote is not evidence. But, it can be worse than that,
in the plural of "selective" anecdotes, which exclude all contradictory
stories, isn't just *not* evidence, its *false* evidence, i.e., lying by
exclusion.
>> We protect people from themselves all the damn time. Everything from, "
>> "Don't drive drunk, or we will arrest you.",
>
> That's protecting the public, not the individual.
>
>> to, "You can't swim in the
>> sewage pond, so we put big warning signs and a fence around it.",
>
> That's perhaps the best example.
>
>> to,
>> "You vehicle **must** have working turn signals.",
>
> That's about the public, not the individual. My turn signal doesn't tell
> me anything, it's a way of telling others what you're about to do.
>
Yeah, got one out of three.. Point of all of them is that we "do" put
rules in place to protect people. How about another one, "We don't sell
that to you without a prescription." I.e., unless someone else says you
*need it*, not just because you personally *think* you need it. Wait..
isn't that just what you are sort of advocating for some of this stuff? lol
>> etc., are all about
>> protecting not just the rest of the people, but the moron doing it.
>
> I disagree.
>
Lot of it is about perception of "harm". We get in this argument a lot
on some blog with libertarians. Do you put in place laws, regulations
and rules, **in case** someone does something wrong, or wait until they
do, then try to step in and fix the problem, after real damage has
**already** been done? They say, "wait", or worse, "it will fix itself
in this case, if you let it", the other side say, "Yeah, but, by the
time it *fixes itself* 2 million people are out of work, most of the
companies are hoarding money, and you people **still** insist its all
going to a) fix itself, and b) we don't need laws, or regulations, to
keep it from happening again." We know what open drug use *has* done in
cases where it took place, because people get stoned, drive, go to work,
etc., all the damn time, and get other people killed/hurt. Its the whole
fracking reason why companies do drug tests now. They can't afford to
have someone *on* the drug, on the job, because of the *real* problems
it causes. And that doesn't mean "within 24 hours", it means, "without
*any* of it in the persons system, since people differ, and the guy that
took a hit two days ago *may* be as big a hazard, from withdrawal, and
the other guy that just took one five minutes ago, and is seeing green
pixies, telling him to run over the floor manager with a fork lift.
Some rules are put in place to preemptively prevent problems, and as
long as people are going to do stupid frakking shit, even while "not" on
drugs, a basic principle has to be to *minimize* the possible causes of
that behavior, which means, not letting people get high, *then* go to
work in that condition, or drive on the street, etc. Which, in the case
of drugs, generally means to not let them do them at all, recreationally.
>> I don't dispute that, and have said so, but the problem is that you are
>> classing people that are, "not in their right minds", by choice or
>> otherwise, in the same category as, "non-violent", in some cases. We
>> also prefer to arrest someone who is intentionally acting in a way that
>> *could* cause someone else harm. As I said, people on certain drugs do
>> not just all, "sit around at home, being stoned", they go places, they
>> do it in public, they get into their heads, while in a state of mind
>> where they *can't* make rational decisions, to do things that get
>> themselves and others killed.
>
> And when they get dangerous, they should be stopped.
>
Again. Meaningless. You can't even tell when some mentally ill people
will become dangerous. You can keep them, if they "could be", and there
is reasonable cause to believe they might be, from dealing with the
public. Otherwise, what do you do to really prevent tragedies, just
chalk it up to, "Oops, we couldn't have ever seen that coming!", like BP
did, on the basis of the number of cases where problems *never*
happened? Oh, wait, I know.. We can create a "precog" center, like in
minority report. That will work...
>> By your logic, it would be perfectly fine
>> to let mental patients out, even if classed as, "potentially dangerous",
>> because that particular day they are not "acting" dangerous, never mind
>> that they could turn at any moment, due to their condition.
>
> Um, no, that's something different. Someone who's schizophrenic is quite
> different from someone who *voluntarily* takes crack cocaine. And now
> you'll argue that the addiction makes it a compulsion, not voluntary, but
> they voluntarily started taking it.
>
But, once it is a compulsion, their initial "voluntary" choice is
rendered mute from that point on. Its no more rational to conclude
otherwise than it is to conclude that someone who "intentional" drove
their car into a tree, but *only* caused limited brain damage, must be
held accountable for all subsequent choices, regardless of nature of
severity, **based on** the fact that the damage in question was to the
part of the brain that lets them feel empathy, or make moral choices.
Damage is damage, cause is irrelevant.
> There's safer and fairer when it's in the public interest, and then
> there's "safer and fairer" which removes all the risk from life entirely,
> and that latter removes the responsibility and consequences of actions
> from individuals and places it on society. "It's not *my* fault I shot
> the store clerk, it's *society's* fault that they didn't protect the
> store clerk from me as effectively as they should have."
>
> Jim
If I was also suggesting stopping hang gliding, or skying, you would
have a point. What I am talking about is the equivalent of someone
suffering damage that leads them to, without real control, start hang
gliding into buildings, or skying through crowds. The initial decision
to hang glide, or sky, is not at issue, even if the *reason* for the
damage, by pure accident, was a result of slamming into a building, or
skying through a crowd of people. Its not relevant to the problem.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2010 2:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:10:39 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Man are you clueless.
>
> Nice way to carry on a conversation, Patrick - start with argumentum ad
> hominem. I'm outta here.
>
> Jim
Sorry, was a bit... excessive. But I see a lot of parallels in this
argument with a whole host of other issues, and imho, I think the logic
works almost as poorly with this one as with all of the rest of them. As
such, I may be getting a bit.. frustrated at seeing it repeated, along
with the non-solutions, and assumptions about what actually is being
done, even when most of it is ineffective, undermined, or bait and
switch politics, almost verbatim, with only a few word changes, specific
to the situation under discussion. I would love a real discussion on
what solutions "need" to be implemented, but, "throw out all the rules",
isn't any more of one than, "keep things they way they are". And things
only getting muddier when you try to find any sort of effective middle
ground. If I falsely perceived a similar trend in this conversation, and
reacted poorly (at least for here), I apologize.
--
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 7/31/2010 6:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> You are speaking to the wrong person, here. "Habituating" is not a
>> word in British English we use dependency (if I follow you correctly).
>
> I believe that's correct.
>
>> I’m also a bit wary of the term “good drugs” I know that it is popular
>> to say things like good and bad bacteria but it is a bit misleading.
>
> I mean "good" as in "you like it so much you want more." I don't say
> that fat people have a dependency on Big Macs. I'm trying to figure out
> what the difference between (say) pot and something people get a
> dependency on, given that lots and lots of people here are in jail
> because they can't keep themselves from smoking pot in places they'll
> get caught. So why isn't that a dependency?
>
For a small number, it may be. As has been pointed out, a few quirks in
one or two complex networks of genes can make someone "hugely" more
effected, or hugely less. Its similar to allergies, and in fact *one* of
the things that can trigger alcohol addictions *is* a mild enough
allergy to it that it has a *much* bigger effect, but not so much of one
that it would kill the person. For most its just a matter that someone
already "on" pot has problems thinking clearly, and so, it never occurs
to them **not to** smoke some place they will get caught, should they
already be taking it, when they smoke the next one. Doesn't help that it
makes people want to eat a lot, so, if they don't have enough in house,
or they decide they badly want something they don't have....
--
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 01/08/2010 2:52 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> You are speaking to the wrong person, here. "Habituating" is not a
>> word in British English we use dependency (if I follow you correctly).
>
> I believe that's correct.
>
>> I’m also a bit wary of the term “good drugs” I know that it is popular
>> to say things like good and bad bacteria but it is a bit misleading.
>
> I mean "good" as in "you like it so much you want more." I don't say
> that fat people have a dependency on Big Macs. I'm trying to figure out
> what the difference between (say) pot and something people get a
> dependency on, given that lots and lots of people here are in jail
> because they can't keep themselves from smoking pot in places they'll
> get caught. So why isn't that a dependency?
>
Yes, I would call that a dependency. As for Big Macs I would say that
some people have a dependency on them too.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Yes, I would call that a dependency. As for Big Macs I would say that
> some people have a dependency on them too.
OK, so it's not really a word that applies particularly to the drug, as much
as a syndrome of behaviors that some people have when they're taking it?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> rendered mute
Rendered moot, just so you know.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/1/2010 10:32 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> rendered mute
>
> Rendered moot, just so you know.
>
Thank you grammer police, you always help so much in discussions. ;) lol
--
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 01/08/2010 6:30 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Yes, I would call that a dependency. As for Big Macs I would say that
>> some people have a dependency on them too.
>
> OK, so it's not really a word that applies particularly to the drug, as
> much as a syndrome of behaviors that some people have when they're
> taking it?
>
Yes that's it, jimmie's dependant on XXXX.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:12:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/08/2010 6:30 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Yes, I would call that a dependency. As for Big Macs I would say that
>>> some people have a dependency on them too.
>>
>> OK, so it's not really a word that applies particularly to the drug, as
>> much as a syndrome of behaviors that some people have when they're
>> taking it?
>>
>>
> Yes that's it, jimmie's dependant on XXXX.
Am not. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:50:32 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> If I falsely perceived a similar trend in this conversation, and reacted
> poorly (at least for here), I apologize.
It's OK - I have been really not getting enough sleep myself and probably
have not expressed my opinions clearly - I see that I'm really debating
from an extreme position, though in reality, my thoughts aren't quite as
extreme as that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2010 6:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:12:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2010 6:30 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Yes, I would call that a dependency. As for Big Macs I would say that
>>>> some people have a dependency on them too.
>>>
>>> OK, so it's not really a word that applies particularly to the drug, as
>>> much as a syndrome of behaviors that some people have when they're
>>> taking it?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes that's it, jimmie's dependant on XXXX.
>
> Am not. ;-)
>
ROTFL
That was unexpected. :-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:02:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>> Yes that's it, jimmie's dependant on XXXX.
>>
>> Am not. ;-)
>>
>>
> ROTFL
>
> That was unexpected. :-D
Why else do you think I decided to reply to it? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2010 9:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:02:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> Yes that's it, jimmie's dependant on XXXX.
>>>
>>> Am not. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> ROTFL
>>
>> That was unexpected. :-D
>
> Why else do you think I decided to reply to it? ;-)
>
Ah dinnae ken, Jimmie.
BTW I did not mean to tell anyone. :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:12:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> Why else do you think I decided to reply to it? ;-)
>>
> Ah dinnae ken, Jimmie.
>
> BTW I did not mean to tell anyone. :-P
You're still buyin' the first round, so it's OK. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2010 11:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:12:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Why else do you think I decided to reply to it? ;-)
>>>
>> Ah dinnae ken, Jimmie.
>>
>> BTW I did not mean to tell anyone. :-P
>
> You're still buyin' the first round, so it's OK. ;-)
>
And you're still buying the last one ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:37:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/08/2010 11:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:12:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Why else do you think I decided to reply to it? ;-)
>>>>
>>> Ah dinnae ken, Jimmie.
>>>
>>> BTW I did not mean to tell anyone. :-P
>>
>> You're still buyin' the first round, so it's OK. ;-)
>>
>>
> And you're still buying the last one ;-)
And you're still buying the *next* one. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2010 5:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> You're still buyin' the first round, so it's OK. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> And you're still buying the last one ;-)
>
> And you're still buying the *next* one. :-)
>
Wa Wa Wa Wabits!
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:44:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 7/30/2010 2:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> You don't need a medical degree to read articles on the effects of
>>>>> these things, and no, I don't have, or remember, the specific
>>>>> magazines, or which issues.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough, but are you certain you're not falling to confirmation
>>>> bias?
>>>>
>>> How is, "Taking there chemicals does X, and we can test people that
>>> take it and *show* that it does. Not to mention it never goes away,
>>> and every medical professional says that the people they treat never
>>> lose the addiction, they just learn to avoid every place, person, or
>>> thing that helped trigger it.", qualify as confirmation bias?
>>
>> Assumption: You're only reading sources that agree with something you
>> already think. Again, just a question.
>>
> I am using reading sources that agree with the medical community, many
> of which have to deal with the problems caused, not necessarily the
> actual rehab, and others of which deal, quite clinically, with the
> chemistry involved, without dealing directly with people at all (except
> in some cases, to confirm their findings, after concluding that the
> effect exists).
That's a long sentence. :-) "Agree with the medical community" or "are
written by the medical community" (or a combination of the two)? The
first would be a form of confirmation bias, the second would not. :-)
> Yeah, got one out of three.. Point of all of them is that we "do" put
> rules in place to protect people. How about another one, "We don't sell
> that to you without a prescription." I.e., unless someone else says you
> *need it*, not just because you personally *think* you need it. Wait..
> isn't that just what you are sort of advocating for some of this stuff?
> lol
I'm advocating controls, sure.
>>> etc., are all about
>>> protecting not just the rest of the people, but the moron doing it.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
> Lot of it is about perception of "harm". We get in this argument a lot
> on some blog with libertarians. Do you put in place laws, regulations
> and rules, **in case** someone does something wrong, or wait until they
> do, then try to step in and fix the problem, after real damage has
> **already** been done? They say, "wait", or worse, "it will fix itself
> in this case, if you let it", the other side say, "Yeah, but, by the
> time it *fixes itself* 2 million people are out of work, most of the
> companies are hoarding money, and you people **still** insist its all
> going to a) fix itself, and b) we don't need laws, or regulations, to
> keep it from happening again."
Another very long sentence. :)
I'm not an advocate or a fan of total deregulation (so I'd fail as a
libertarian); I've seen what total deregulation does. So has everyone
here - for a reminder, just look at the Gulf of Mexico for what happens
when the laws are written by people with a vested interest in being as
regulated "as little as possible, and not at all would be preferred".
> We know what open drug use *has* done in
> cases where it took place, because people get stoned, drive, go to work,
> etc., all the damn time, and get other people killed/hurt.
That's about the "after" issues, which yes, if they break the law, they
should be punished for. I've never said "don't punish those who put
others in harm's way". But I have a hard time criminalizing, say,
smoking pot because it's *smoking pot*. If they get in a car and get
stopped, throw the book at them. If they stay at home, leave them alone.
> Its the whole
> fracking reason why companies do drug tests now.
s/fracking/frakking - one of these times you'll get it right. ;-)
> They can't afford to
> have someone *on* the drug, on the job, because of the *real* problems
> it causes. And that doesn't mean "within 24 hours", it means, "without
> *any* of it in the persons system, since people differ, and the guy that
> took a hit two days ago *may* be as big a hazard, from withdrawal, and
> the other guy that just took one five minutes ago, and is seeing green
> pixies, telling him to run over the floor manager with a fork lift.
And an employer has the right to do that. And if someone who smokes pot
can't get a job, that's their own problem. They can decide to look for
employment elsewhere or they can get clean.
> frakking
See? You got it right. :-) <SCNR>
> drugs, a basic principle has to be to *minimize* the possible causes of
> that behavior, which means, not letting people get high, *then* go to
> work in that condition, or drive on the street, etc. Which, in the case
> of drugs, generally means to not let them do them at all,
> recreationally.
The problem is the "then go to work in that condition", not the "letting
people get high". So the focus needs to be on the effect, not the
prospective cause, because there are plenty of other options they could
follow if they get high. They could sleep for the next 3 days, too.
>> And when they get dangerous, they should be stopped.
>>
> Again. Meaningless.
I disagree.
> You can't even tell when some mentally ill people
> will become dangerous.
Sure, but we're not talking about the mentally ill. We're talking about
recreational drug users.
>> Um, no, that's something different. Someone who's schizophrenic is
>> quite different from someone who *voluntarily* takes crack cocaine.
>> And now you'll argue that the addiction makes it a compulsion, not
>> voluntary, but they voluntarily started taking it.
>>
> But, once it is a compulsion, their initial "voluntary" choice is
> rendered mute from that point on.
s/mute/moot - pet peeve of mine. Mute means something entirely different.
Their initial voluntary choice is the important point. If it becomes
problematic enough for them, they can seek treatment or assistance to
break their addiction. Many people *do* break their addictions.
Sometimes it's easy; sometimes it's not. Nobody ever said life would be
easy, nor that living with the consequences of your actions would be.
> If I was also suggesting stopping hang gliding, or skying, you would
> have a point. What I am talking about is the equivalent of someone
> suffering damage that leads them to, without real control, start hang
> gliding into buildings, or skying through crowds. The initial decision
> to hang glide, or sky, is not at issue, even if the *reason* for the
> damage, by pure accident, was a result of slamming into a building, or
> skying through a crowd of people. Its not relevant to the problem.
"skying" - I'm not sure what that is.
But when someone starts engaging in that kind of behaviour, they then
have the choice to either listen to what others say ("dude, that's messed
up, you need to get some help") or decide on their own that that's
destructive and dangerous behaviour, or they can be taken into custody at
that time for their illegal activity. Saying "the drugs made me do it"
is an excuse.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:49:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 5:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>>> You're still buyin' the first round, so it's OK. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And you're still buying the last one ;-)
>>
>> And you're still buying the *next* one. :-)
>>
>>
>
> Wa Wa Wa Wabits!
D-d-d-d-d-ducks! ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2010 9:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:49:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 03/08/2010 5:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>>>> You're still buyin' the first round, so it's OK. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And you're still buying the last one ;-)
>>>
>>> And you're still buying the *next* one. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wa Wa Wa Wabits!
>
> D-d-d-d-d-ducks! ;-)
>
F-f-f-f-f... :-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 9:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:49:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/08/2010 5:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> You're still buyin' the first round, so it's OK. ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> And you're still buying the last one ;-)
> >>>
> >>> And you're still buying the *next* one. :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Wa Wa Wa Wabits!
> >
> > D-d-d-d-d-ducks! ;-)
> >
>
> F-f-f-f-f... :-D
Fuuu...
(google for it)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/3/2010 1:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> We know what open drug use *has* done in
>> cases where it took place, because people get stoned, drive, go to work,
>> etc., all the damn time, and get other people killed/hurt.
>
> That's about the "after" issues, which yes, if they break the law, they
> should be punished for. I've never said "don't punish those who put
> others in harm's way". But I have a hard time criminalizing, say,
> smoking pot because it's *smoking pot*. If they get in a car and get
> stopped, throw the book at them. If they stay at home, leave them alone.
>
Which is only relevant if you have some minimal certainty that they will
stay home. You have, seems to me, if you are dealing with something
strong enough to be a serious problem (pot not being one of them), you
can treat them like, say, a viral outbreak - a) as a potential host, or
b) as a carrier. The later you don't **allow** to leave. The former, you
make damn sure isn't exposed in the first place, so can't become a
threat. With dangerous drugs, that can and do cause problems, we have
done the absurd equivalent of the former, attempting to tell people,
"Don't breath, you might catch it!", when its so prevalent and available
that almost everyone **will be** exposed. We are, for the most part,
unwilling to do the later at all, because its not seen as necessary, or
worse, its seen as *more wrong* to have drug clubs, and semi-safe
places, instead of having everyone do it, and random place they can
find. Not that I think, even if such existed, it would be a reasonable
solution, any more than allowing opium dens once was.
There is a third option - cure the actual condition, so it doesn't
spread. This is expensive, doesn't produce nice, convenient, politically
useful, results, which can be shown on the nightly news, to *prove* the
money isn't being wasted. And then.. there is the subset of assholes,
who, much like the anti-LGBT types, who react to the problem they way
anti-LGBT have sometimes been treated when dealing with AIDS, and just
proclaim, "Why the fuck should we help these people, its their own
fault!" I massively object to this argument, for the simple fact that
its a case of herd immunity. If you don't fix the AIDS problem, the risk
of my, and everyone else, being impacted by it increases, for every
single new person infected. Same with drugs. The more people are taking
hard drugs, and not being helped to quit, and the more time is wasted
*not* finding a better, more effective, solution, that actually cures
the addiction, the higher the risk that I, someone I know, or one of my
own family members, will end up at risk, because of it. I would have to
be an idiot to just shrug it off as either, "Their problem, since they
chose that life.", or, "Not my problem, since its some other random
person that will end up in a gang shoot out, or next to some Meth cooker
that gets the formula wrong and blows up 2 city blocks."
You have to stop people needing them, and using them when its dangerous,
or you can't stop people selling them. All you do is put people in jail
*after* they caused the inevitable. And, even "legal" drugs that you can
get via prescription, have a black market, with the same gang warfare,
where its rare enough, and people willing to doctor the product. The
only thing worse, is not controlling them at all.
>> If I was also suggesting stopping hang gliding, or skying, you would
>> have a point. What I am talking about is the equivalent of someone
>> suffering damage that leads them to, without real control, start hang
>> gliding into buildings, or skying through crowds. The initial decision
>> to hang glide, or sky, is not at issue, even if the *reason* for the
>> damage, by pure accident, was a result of slamming into a building, or
>> skying through a crowd of people. Its not relevant to the problem.
>
> "skying" - I'm not sure what that is.
>
Yeah, yeah.. I know, some thigs I spel bawdly.. lol
> But when someone starts engaging in that kind of behaviour, they then
> have the choice to either listen to what others say ("dude, that's messed
> up, you need to get some help") or decide on their own that that's
> destructive and dangerous behaviour, or they can be taken into custody at
> that time for their illegal activity. Saying "the drugs made me do it"
> is an excuse.
>
> Jim
The former pretty much *never* happens. You have to decide that its
something worth stopping, and then, like a lot of things, a certain
percentage will find that they simply *can't*, no matter how much help
they get, because their brain chemistry just doesn't work that way, and
so they have a harder, or impossible, time stopping. That is why, if you
want to cure everyone, and break the whole drug abuse cycle at all, you
need to find something that corrects the problem, not just hope people
give it up, then stay that way. This is true for everything from crack,
to anabolic steroids, to race car driving. If you are prone to "needing"
the fix, more than average, even deciding that you need to stop may not
be enough to stop, once started. Something like crack just amplifies the
problem.
--
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, 03 Aug 2010 14:25:32 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> But when someone starts engaging in that kind of behaviour, they then
>> have the choice to either listen to what others say ("dude, that's
>> messed up, you need to get some help") or decide on their own that
>> that's destructive and dangerous behaviour, or they can be taken into
>> custody at that time for their illegal activity. Saying "the drugs
>> made me do it" is an excuse.
>>
> The former pretty much *never* happens.
Depends on the drug and the individual.
> You have to decide that its
> something worth stopping, and then, like a lot of things, a certain
> percentage will find that they simply *can't*, no matter how much help
> they get, because their brain chemistry just doesn't work that way, and
> so they have a harder, or impossible, time stopping. That is why, if you
> want to cure everyone, and break the whole drug abuse cycle at all, you
> need to find something that corrects the problem, not just hope people
> give it up, then stay that way. This is true for everything from crack,
> to anabolic steroids, to race car driving. If you are prone to "needing"
> the fix, more than average, even deciding that you need to stop may not
> be enough to stop, once started. Something like crack just amplifies the
> problem.
I've already stated that crack and other drugs are not drugs I'd be for
the legalization of - so using those extreme examples doesn't work in
this discussion.
Some percentage of people can't resist alcohol - they *need* their fix.
They're called "alcoholics". So because some people can't resist the
addiction, should all of us have to go through prohibition?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/6/2010 2:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:25:32 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> But when someone starts engaging in that kind of behaviour, they then
>>> have the choice to either listen to what others say ("dude, that's
>>> messed up, you need to get some help") or decide on their own that
>>> that's destructive and dangerous behaviour, or they can be taken into
>>> custody at that time for their illegal activity. Saying "the drugs
>>> made me do it" is an excuse.
>>>
>> The former pretty much *never* happens.
>
> Depends on the drug and the individual.
>
>> You have to decide that its
>> something worth stopping, and then, like a lot of things, a certain
>> percentage will find that they simply *can't*, no matter how much help
>> they get, because their brain chemistry just doesn't work that way, and
>> so they have a harder, or impossible, time stopping. That is why, if you
>> want to cure everyone, and break the whole drug abuse cycle at all, you
>> need to find something that corrects the problem, not just hope people
>> give it up, then stay that way. This is true for everything from crack,
>> to anabolic steroids, to race car driving. If you are prone to "needing"
>> the fix, more than average, even deciding that you need to stop may not
>> be enough to stop, once started. Something like crack just amplifies the
>> problem.
>
> I've already stated that crack and other drugs are not drugs I'd be for
> the legalization of - so using those extreme examples doesn't work in
> this discussion.
>
> Some percentage of people can't resist alcohol - they *need* their fix.
> They're called "alcoholics". So because some people can't resist the
> addiction, should all of us have to go through prohibition?
>
> Jim
No the argument I am making. What I am saying is, if you want to solve
the problem, you don't throw the guy who is an alcoholic, or worse, got
that way due to a very high susceptibility to it, in a jail. All you get
is more and more people in jail. You make sure there is an "effective"
solution. Problem is.. Most of the solutions are programs like AA, which
"inflate" their success rates by only counting people that remain in the
programs, then claim to do *better* than government run programs, which
are mandated to both report drop outs, and track, as well as possible,
whether or not their patients are still off it, for a certain number of
years. The *real* effectiveness of purely, "lets talk about this",
programs tends to be between 90-95%, which is *exactly* the rate you get
from people that decide to quit, without any intervention, and succeed.
In fact, that only counts the number of people that "try" to stop.
Nearly 57%, in the case of alcoholics, who actually do quit, never went
to such a program, compared to 10% that did, and 29% that decided to
stop due to health issues. Government programs, which involve actual
psychology, as well as a real understanding of the biology involved, and
what limited methods of pharmacology we have to deal with it, depending
on the drug in question, tend to have at least "measurable" rates, which
do not fall in the range of, "statistical error". Mind, I am having a
bit of an issue finding real statistics, instead of 40 million pages of
stuff advertising the latest, "This isn't AA, or a government program.
We cure people using, bible verses, toothpaste, pink unicorns, hair die,
rainbow socks, etc..."
I am a bit amused by the statistics found on one site that, to drum up
their own supposed better program, talks about AA and professional
programs, pointing out that they both sort of fail in the long run, and
mentioning of AA:
"In every category, the people who got no treatment at all fared better
than the people who got A.A. "treatment". Based on the records of
re-arrests, only 31% of the A.A.-treated clients were deemed successful,
while 44% of the "untreated" clients were successful."
We need better solutions. Its irrelevant what drug, or how strong, or
for what reason, the person has a problem. If all you do is jail people
that hurt others, while taking them, what you end up with is a lot of
people in jail, an almost meaningless decrease of drunks/druggies among
the cured, and a *constant* replacement of those same people by anything
from 5x to 20x as many new users, most of which won't quit on their own,
won't be successful if they try, and will eventually end up in a jail
some place.
Its fairly irrelevant, given this basic problem, what drug you are
talking about. No, banning it doesn't work, isn't effective, and causing
"huge" problems on its own, generally. But, if 90% of your programs are
pure gibberish, 5% are professional programs, which don't fair much
better, and the people with the purse strings keep denying every attempt
to find something that *does* work, in favor of lining the pockets of
the people running ones that don't, often for ideological reasons, or
worse, refusing to fund *anything* at all, for similar reasons... Well,
we already know what that results 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 Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:36:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> [...]
There's not a lot there I can (or would) disagree with. However that
seems to go against what you were saying earlier about needing to protect
people from themselves by making use of certain drugs illegal.
How do you reconcile those two positions?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/9/2010 11:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:36:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> There's not a lot there I can (or would) disagree with. However that
> seems to go against what you were saying earlier about needing to protect
> people from themselves by making use of certain drugs illegal.
>
> How do you reconcile those two positions?
>
> Jim
Not at all. The problem is that you can't make something illegal by
simply declaring that it is, and everyone either stops using it, stops
making it, or stops selling it. To have any such ban work, you have to
fight a war of attrition. Remove the need, you remove users, which
removes sellers, which removes makers. The entirely system of the "war
on drugs" is run 180 degrees backwards from this reality. The need keeps
increasing, even without new users, who also keep increasing, so we
arrest everyone arbitrarily, in hopes it somehow fixes things, then play
political football of manufacturers and sellers, which does litter more
than shift those two aspects from one group to the next, without every
getting rid of it.
Only by addressing the root cause, which is the **need** for the drugs,
can you make any headway at all with the rest. However, if you have no
means the fix the core problem *at all*, then you are in a BP situation.
You can't fix the core problem, so you spend what ever effort and
resources you *do* have, and how ever ineffectual your results are,
attempting to lessen the impact, and clean up the mess. But, the problem
isn't ever going to go way, until you plug the real source in the first
place. Its like trying to bail water out of a boat, on the assumption
that the problem is solely how fast you can get the water *out* of the
boat, while ignoring the fact that you parked the damn thing under a
waterfall, water tends to fall down hill, for some odd reason, and your
boat is basically "container" shaped. If all you look at is how fast you
can pump out the water, (i.e., how many drugs you capture or people you
jail), your entire effort is wasted. **BUT**, if you can't, or are not
allowed, to move the boat, all you are left with is finding new ways to
remove the water, without addressing the real problem.
Thus, there is no conflict between making some drugs illegal, and fixing
the problem on a user level. You do the former because its better than
doing nothing, but you *must* pursue efforts to also do the later, or
all you will ever manage to achieve is a slower disaster.
--
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 8/9/2010 5:48 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 8/9/2010 11:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:36:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> There's not a lot there I can (or would) disagree with. However that
>> seems to go against what you were saying earlier about needing to protect
>> people from themselves by making use of certain drugs illegal.
>>
>> How do you reconcile those two positions?
>>
>> Jim
> Not at all. The problem is that you can't make something illegal by
> simply declaring that it is, and everyone either stops using it, stops
> making it, or stops selling it. To have any such ban work, you have to
> fight a war of attrition. Remove the need, you remove users, which
> removes sellers, which removes makers. The entirely system of the "war
> on drugs" is run 180 degrees backwards from this reality. The need keeps
> increasing, even without new users, who also keep increasing, so we
> arrest everyone arbitrarily, in hopes it somehow fixes things, then play
> political football of manufacturers and sellers, which does litter more
> than shift those two aspects from one group to the next, without every
> getting rid of it.
>
> Only by addressing the root cause, which is the **need** for the drugs,
> can you make any headway at all with the rest. However, if you have no
> means the fix the core problem *at all*, then you are in a BP situation.
> You can't fix the core problem, so you spend what ever effort and
> resources you *do* have, and how ever ineffectual your results are,
> attempting to lessen the impact, and clean up the mess. But, the problem
> isn't ever going to go way, until you plug the real source in the first
> place. Its like trying to bail water out of a boat, on the assumption
> that the problem is solely how fast you can get the water *out* of the
> boat, while ignoring the fact that you parked the damn thing under a
> waterfall, water tends to fall down hill, for some odd reason, and your
> boat is basically "container" shaped. If all you look at is how fast you
> can pump out the water, (i.e., how many drugs you capture or people you
> jail), your entire effort is wasted. **BUT**, if you can't, or are not
> allowed, to move the boat, all you are left with is finding new ways to
> remove the water, without addressing the real problem.
>
> Thus, there is no conflict between making some drugs illegal, and fixing
> the problem on a user level. You do the former because its better than
> doing nothing, but you *must* pursue efforts to also do the later, or
> all you will ever manage to achieve is a slower disaster.
>
Sigh.. NEVER post when half asleep. lol I don't want to even count how
many errors I made, given the ones in the first paragraph. :p
--
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, 10 Aug 2010 11:39:29 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sigh.. NEVER post when half asleep. lol I don't want to even count how
> many errors I made, given the ones in the first paragraph. :p
Heh, I know the feeling. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
