Forums > Social Discussion > alcohol/tobacco vs. dope/mushrooms
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
This post is in connection with the often quoted view that legal drugs (alcohol/tobacco) cause more problems than many illegal ones (marijuana, 'e', mushrooms).
It is true that the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are responsible for far more suffering tham marijuana, 'e' and mushrooms.
Alcohol fuels the friday/saturday night casuality 'carnage'/street violence that is rife in the UK; tobacco is responsible for 4,000,000 smoking related deaths per year worldwide (that's more than all other drugs put together.
And this fact is often brought up by those who are against legislation for marijuana, 'e', mushrooms etc.
-----------------------
Just to put a different slant on this; is it not possible that a contributing factor to the devastation caused by the legal drugs, is precisely the fact that they are legal, and thus easily obtainable and usable in public?
If so, is that not good reason to not legalise the other drugs?
(I am aware that, for the past couple of years, potent mushrooms have been legally available in the UK/USA and sold openly, so they are technically legal; I would still differentiate between that and the legality of tobacco/alcohol because it hasn't been particularly well known by the general public, and it is currentlybeing seen as more of a 'loophole' in the law).
I anticipate that 'hypocrisy' will be brought into this ie why should alcohol/tobacco be legal and not marijuana- the main thing I'd ask people to reflect on with this is that alcohol/tobacco have been legal so long that-
1. they are (sadly IMO) accepted, seen as the norm, and prohibiting them fully would seem to be impractical
2. if they were freshly discovered today, they would be banned
3. in the case of tobacco, efforts are being made to gradually scale down use, by, for example, it being made illegal in increasing numbers of countries, to use it in public places
Obviously this is a wide ranging topic with lots of avenues for discussion; I would appreciate it if people do give their opinion on the point raised above (that the fact that alcohol/tobacco are legal, is one of the factors in their destructiveness).
This post is in connection with the often quoted view that legal drugs (alcohol/tobacco) cause more problems than many illegal ones (marijuana, 'e', mushrooms).
It is true that the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are responsible for far more suffering tham marijuana, 'e' and mushrooms.
Alcohol fuels the friday/saturday night casuality 'carnage'/street violence that is rife in the UK; tobacco is responsible for 4,000,000 smoking related deaths per year worldwide (that's more than all other drugs put together.
And this fact is often brought up by those who are against legislation for marijuana, 'e', mushrooms etc.
-----------------------
Just to put a different slant on this; is it not possible that a contributing factor to the devastation caused by the legal drugs, is precisely the fact that they are legal, and thus easily obtainable and usable in public?
If so, is that not good reason to not legalise the other drugs?
(I am aware that, for the past couple of years, potent mushrooms have been legally available in the UK/USA and sold openly, so they are technically legal; I would still differentiate between that and the legality of tobacco/alcohol because it hasn't been particularly well known by the general public, and it is currentlybeing seen as more of a 'loophole' in the law).
I anticipate that 'hypocrisy' will be brought into this ie why should alcohol/tobacco be legal and not marijuana- the main thing I'd ask people to reflect on with this is that alcohol/tobacco have been legal so long that-
1. they are (sadly IMO) accepted, seen as the norm, and prohibiting them fully would seem to be impractical
2. if they were freshly discovered today, they would be banned
3. in the case of tobacco, efforts are being made to gradually scale down use, by, for example, it being made illegal in increasing numbers of countries, to use it in public places
Obviously this is a wide ranging topic with lots of avenues for discussion; I would appreciate it if people do give their opinion on the point raised above (that the fact that alcohol/tobacco are legal, is one of the factors in their destructiveness).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
good point. IMOHO i beleive from personal experience that a lot of people's approach to drugs of all kinds in this country are seriously effected by this pub culture which while appearing to be the only available source of socialising and supposedly 'having fun' actually excludes the teenage population while it appears the 'norm' for the older generation to be out getting plastered... thus rather than learning how enjoy themselves sensibly in moderation the minute they get their hands on any kind of drug they get completely off their faces... something which continues well beyond they reach a legal drinking age and applies to other forms of drug as well as alcohol...
Written by: coleman
you say pubs are the primary means of socialising within our culture (which i don't agree with) but taking that premise for now, a limit on our freedoms within a place like that is all the worse.
are we not free to drink and socialise in our own homes?
do pubs not become hotspots for most alcohol related voilent crime?
if the answer to both of these questions is yes, does it not suggest that, like smoking, alcohol should be banned from pubs leaving them as centres to meet and socialise in, free from the negatives that recreational drug use imposes?
seeing as children are not permitted in a lot of pubs anyway, the fact that they are 'the primary means of socialising within our culture' excludes children from gaining social skills until they are of sufficient age to access to them.
following that line of thinking, ban smoking and alcohol in pubs and they are free to become the social centres for the whole of society, not just those that want to be around consumers of alcohol above the age of 16/18/21.
good point. IMOHO i beleive from personal experience that a lot of people's approach to drugs of all kinds in this country are seriously effected by this pub culture which while appearing to be the only available source of socialising and supposedly 'having fun' actually excludes the teenage population while it appears the 'norm' for the older generation to be out getting plastered... thus rather than learning how enjoy themselves sensibly in moderation the minute they get their hands on any kind of drug they get completely off their faces... something which continues well beyond they reach a legal drinking age and applies to other forms of drug as well as alcohol...
It is our fantasies that make us real. Without our fantasies we're just a blank monkey' - Terry Pratchett
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I consider that line of argument is very common, yet IMO, invalid.
I've put forward my reasoning about A, and you've brought up an analogous situation B; and then claimed that if I'm going to support/promote A, I should feel obliged to also push for B- along with the implication that my refusal to promote b,in some way invalidates A.
There are many problems in this world, we have to be selective about which ones we are going to embrace.
For me, the smoking problem is dear to my heart, I consider myself, due to my own considerable experience with all facets of smoking and the nature of how my mind works; to be able to offer some very valid, and fairly unique opinions on the matter.
How many hours have I spent posting on this board about the smoking problem?- a hell of a lot.
I do not have time to spend on 'analogous' problems that I'm not particularly interested in, or expert on.
The fact that I'm saying nothing about 'B', has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of my arguments for 'A'.
I am under no obligation whatsoever to support 'B' in any way- and that does not affect,or diminish, my arguments about smoking.
In my view coleman, you are using a 'linguistic trick' here.
Written by: coleman
well, i don't feel that strongly about it.
i was just using it as an analogy to something you do seem to care strongly about and show that if you ban one thing based on a 'the greater good' argument then you should carry that out through all aspects of society, not just one.
I consider that line of argument is very common, yet IMO, invalid.
I've put forward my reasoning about A, and you've brought up an analogous situation B; and then claimed that if I'm going to support/promote A, I should feel obliged to also push for B- along with the implication that my refusal to promote b,in some way invalidates A.
There are many problems in this world, we have to be selective about which ones we are going to embrace.
For me, the smoking problem is dear to my heart, I consider myself, due to my own considerable experience with all facets of smoking and the nature of how my mind works; to be able to offer some very valid, and fairly unique opinions on the matter.
How many hours have I spent posting on this board about the smoking problem?- a hell of a lot.
I do not have time to spend on 'analogous' problems that I'm not particularly interested in, or expert on.
The fact that I'm saying nothing about 'B', has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of my arguments for 'A'.
I am under no obligation whatsoever to support 'B' in any way- and that does not affect,or diminish, my arguments about smoking.
In my view coleman, you are using a 'linguistic trick' here.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It gives me greater credence and a understanding of the smoking trap that I would not have had if I hadn't smoked.
I've been all of the following:-
*a non-smoker who despised my parents nicotine addiction.
*a newbie smoker believing that, somehow, I was unlike my parents and other nicotine addicts, that I was far too clever to become addicted, and that my 'reasons' for smoking were somehow more noble.
*I've spent years under the happy delusion that I enjoyed, and benefitted from, smoking.
*I've experienced the slide into the slow realisation that, strange as it seems, I just can't seem to shake the habit- every attempt to quit, by a huge variety of means, always ending the same- in me lighting up a cigarette.
*Then I've experienced the awful knowledge that I'm a total addict, that, desite my 'cleverness' I'd walked headlong into the exact same trap that will. almost certainly, ensure that my parents will die as life-long smokers (despite their best intentions) along with the other 4,000,000 victims worldwide, that, sadly, also die that year.
*A couple of years where all illusions of enjoyment were gone- I smoked only because I had to, and I smoked more than ever before; and I detested each and every cigarette.
*And then, I saw through it; I came to understand exactly how the smoking trap worked, and had glimpses of the way out. Nevertheless, my escape was assisted greatly by luck.... ultimately, a window of opportunity came my way, and I had the ruthless courage to follow it with a blind conviction; had the courage to cease giving credence to the logical b*llshit arguments that are an inextricable part of smoking addiction, and which keep people from engaging with the truth; and which had, by then, become an almost inextricable part of me also.
And, since that time, 5 years ago, not one cigarette or nicotine containing object has passed my lips.
So far away from the haze of that escape, and now totally free from the smoking trap, I can see, with absolute crystal clarity, how the smoking trap works.
It's no exageration to say I was a slave; and now I am not- ultimatley, to me, that is the main pro of escaping the smoking trap- health, money, not smelling etc; are all good- but the main thing is that I'm not a slave anymore.
I now have the choice to never put a cigarette in my mouth again. Yet, if I did want to commence smoking again, I could- simply by lighting one up; within weeks I could be a 30-a-day-man again.
What I do not have, is the choice to smoke a single cigarette again, or to have a single toke on a cigarette or other tobacco containing object.
It's not an option- one cigarette, or one toke, is, for me, the start of an inevitable chain, which would almost certainly end in me dying as a lifelong smoker and, a lifelong slave.
The simple fact that I could not accept that I, as an intelligent and aware human being, could not have 'just the one' is what kept me addicted for all those years.
The fact that I now know beyond all doubt, that 'just the one' is not an option, is what will ensure that I remain free from smoking for the rest of my life.
If only those who are presently desperatly flailing around in their own addiction, or those who have yet to put that potentially life changing first cigarette into their mouths, could understand intellectually the truth of that... so much needless waste and misery would be spared in this world.
-------------
And that is why I post on this subject, because I know. I understand the trap fully, I've been personally involved in every possible permutation of smoking.
And, most important of all, I escaped it- I thus have an understanding that no smoker ever can, and which no non-smoker can understand (by 'non' I mean someone who has never been addicted).
Hopefully, I can express my experiences and knowledge in a way, as much as possible, does not alienate smokers, so that they can help themselves to understand what I do.
Nevertheless, I'm not going to 'pussy-foot' around them; I have no doubt that the hard-core smokers, and those who are in the first flushes of their smoking careers, will find much of what I say to come across as arrogant and overbearing.
IMO, most who feel that way, are precisely the ones who are in considerable danger of dying as life-long smokers- in my experience, the majority of addicted smokers do not ultimately escape.
My main hope is that those who have yet to smoke their first cigarette (or spliff- if it's got tobacco in it it's just as likely to lead to addiction) will read my words, see the sincerity in them, and think, long and hard, about the reality of the smoking trap.
Written by: coleman
.............and you used to smoke dave - not sure what that says about the validity of our opinions here...
It gives me greater credence and a understanding of the smoking trap that I would not have had if I hadn't smoked.
I've been all of the following:-
*a non-smoker who despised my parents nicotine addiction.
*a newbie smoker believing that, somehow, I was unlike my parents and other nicotine addicts, that I was far too clever to become addicted, and that my 'reasons' for smoking were somehow more noble.
*I've spent years under the happy delusion that I enjoyed, and benefitted from, smoking.
*I've experienced the slide into the slow realisation that, strange as it seems, I just can't seem to shake the habit- every attempt to quit, by a huge variety of means, always ending the same- in me lighting up a cigarette.
*Then I've experienced the awful knowledge that I'm a total addict, that, desite my 'cleverness' I'd walked headlong into the exact same trap that will. almost certainly, ensure that my parents will die as life-long smokers (despite their best intentions) along with the other 4,000,000 victims worldwide, that, sadly, also die that year.
*A couple of years where all illusions of enjoyment were gone- I smoked only because I had to, and I smoked more than ever before; and I detested each and every cigarette.
*And then, I saw through it; I came to understand exactly how the smoking trap worked, and had glimpses of the way out. Nevertheless, my escape was assisted greatly by luck.... ultimately, a window of opportunity came my way, and I had the ruthless courage to follow it with a blind conviction; had the courage to cease giving credence to the logical b*llshit arguments that are an inextricable part of smoking addiction, and which keep people from engaging with the truth; and which had, by then, become an almost inextricable part of me also.
And, since that time, 5 years ago, not one cigarette or nicotine containing object has passed my lips.
So far away from the haze of that escape, and now totally free from the smoking trap, I can see, with absolute crystal clarity, how the smoking trap works.
It's no exageration to say I was a slave; and now I am not- ultimatley, to me, that is the main pro of escaping the smoking trap- health, money, not smelling etc; are all good- but the main thing is that I'm not a slave anymore.
I now have the choice to never put a cigarette in my mouth again. Yet, if I did want to commence smoking again, I could- simply by lighting one up; within weeks I could be a 30-a-day-man again.
What I do not have, is the choice to smoke a single cigarette again, or to have a single toke on a cigarette or other tobacco containing object.
It's not an option- one cigarette, or one toke, is, for me, the start of an inevitable chain, which would almost certainly end in me dying as a lifelong smoker and, a lifelong slave.
The simple fact that I could not accept that I, as an intelligent and aware human being, could not have 'just the one' is what kept me addicted for all those years.
The fact that I now know beyond all doubt, that 'just the one' is not an option, is what will ensure that I remain free from smoking for the rest of my life.
If only those who are presently desperatly flailing around in their own addiction, or those who have yet to put that potentially life changing first cigarette into their mouths, could understand intellectually the truth of that... so much needless waste and misery would be spared in this world.
-------------
And that is why I post on this subject, because I know. I understand the trap fully, I've been personally involved in every possible permutation of smoking.
And, most important of all, I escaped it- I thus have an understanding that no smoker ever can, and which no non-smoker can understand (by 'non' I mean someone who has never been addicted).
Hopefully, I can express my experiences and knowledge in a way, as much as possible, does not alienate smokers, so that they can help themselves to understand what I do.
Nevertheless, I'm not going to 'pussy-foot' around them; I have no doubt that the hard-core smokers, and those who are in the first flushes of their smoking careers, will find much of what I say to come across as arrogant and overbearing.
IMO, most who feel that way, are precisely the ones who are in considerable danger of dying as life-long smokers- in my experience, the majority of addicted smokers do not ultimately escape.
My main hope is that those who have yet to smoke their first cigarette (or spliff- if it's got tobacco in it it's just as likely to lead to addiction) will read my words, see the sincerity in them, and think, long and hard, about the reality of the smoking trap.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
yup
you're absolutely right there... my lab also works on environmental pollution, and one of the things that was published (in the popular science-newspaper-version) recently was that Glasgow air is like a 40-a-day smoking habit! I always feel slightly dizzy whenever I'm in London and have to take the tube, and the particles you get there are really too much - I agree completely. When my class went to London for a school trip, nearly everyone got greasy hair and lots of spots, and 4 or 5 people ended up with nosebleeds! (quite a difference to the "good country air" in small towns like the one I come from...)
Oh... I didn't know it was at the choice of the employer! Anyways, I think it's hilarious to walk up to a hospital and see a dozen of nurses and doctors standing in a corner and smoking
Right... I can see the noise thing, but for me that's not that much of an issue... I can see how other people may think differently about that.
As for the women points, as a woman I think that if you go to a pub in a dangerous area or have drinks with men you don't know, you KNOW what you're doing, so, sad as it is, you're putting yourself up to a risk and you KNOW you are. Unless you're too drunk to care of course...
However: You could as well claim that women who can't put up with the smoke in a pub and go outside for a minute to get fresh air can be attacked on the doorstep or can get stuff put into their drinks or non-smokers go for some fresh air and talk loudly outside the pub.
Yes
Is there an off-topic thread?
Written by: coleman
car exhaust fumes and kerosene fumes contain carcinogens too - if it only takes one molecule and some bad luck, standing too close to a bus or a firespinner could mean you are just as at risk as you are in a smoky pub?
yup
Written by: coleman
but i see your point - i don't drive my car around or spin fire in pubs
still, the pollution levels in cities is terrible.
on some lines of the london underground the pollution levels are worse than they are above ground at midday and people still work down there - and millions of us travel on them each week.
ever had black tube bogies? ewwwww...
you're absolutely right there... my lab also works on environmental pollution, and one of the things that was published (in the popular science-newspaper-version) recently was that Glasgow air is like a 40-a-day smoking habit! I always feel slightly dizzy whenever I'm in London and have to take the tube, and the particles you get there are really too much - I agree completely. When my class went to London for a school trip, nearly everyone got greasy hair and lots of spots, and 4 or 5 people ended up with nosebleeds! (quite a difference to the "good country air" in small towns like the one I come from...)
Written by:
(smoking is already banned in the vast majority of uk workplaces already - at the choice of the employer i might add)
Oh... I didn't know it was at the choice of the employer! Anyways, I think it's hilarious to walk up to a hospital and see a dozen of nurses and doctors standing in a corner and smoking
Written by:
- increased noise outside pubs at times other than the usual noisy closing time
- pub patrons outside pubs but not on pub property
- women forced to go outside but not allowed to take drinks with them (ever heard of rohypnol...?)
- women outside pubs in dangerous areas - a landlord could not be held responsible if a woman is attacked on their doorstep...
Right... I can see the noise thing, but for me that's not that much of an issue... I can see how other people may think differently about that.
As for the women points, as a woman I think that if you go to a pub in a dangerous area or have drinks with men you don't know, you KNOW what you're doing, so, sad as it is, you're putting yourself up to a risk and you KNOW you are. Unless you're too drunk to care of course...
However: You could as well claim that women who can't put up with the smoke in a pub and go outside for a minute to get fresh air can be attacked on the doorstep or can get stuff put into their drinks or non-smokers go for some fresh air and talk loudly outside the pub.
Written by:
and the real question... is this allnow?
Yes
Is there an off-topic thread?
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
newbie
5 posts
5 posts
Posted:
Sorry Dave, only just read this thread, so taking it back a bit....
re. cannabis schizophrenia - recent research has actually pointed to the possibility of an effect of THC (and other cannabinoids) converse to your assertion. ie. that for certain individuals, exogenous cannabinoid receptor agonists, such as THC, may actually reduce that individuals susceptibility to schizophrenic tendencies.
My own speculation on the basis for this points me towards the idea that THC etc. may (for some individuals) in fact reduce neurotic tendencies, thus reducing mental stress. I do not deny, however, that cannabis, as a psychoactive substance, may well enhance the possibility of an individual prone to schiz. developing the illness
(although the psychologist Laing proposes that the schizophrenic state is in fact a natural healing process of the mind, rebelling against the appaling state of mental/social alienation that our modernistic society propagates).
However, alcohol is also a psychoactive chemical, the abuse of which, as you have described, can have dire consequences (not necessarily confined to the individual themselves).
E must be taken in a wholely different context to dope, here, seeing as it directly messes with the dopamine regulated processes of the brain (dopamine being the only real physiological link identified with schiz. - if at all in doubt of your mental stability, don't do E! (or whizz, or K, or acid, or 2cb or mushies or mesc., or, god forbid, DMT...... etc.).
Cannabis psychosis is another widely acknowledged syndrome within the medical world, although the mental and social detriments associated with a reclusive, full on stoner lifestyle are fairly obvious. I do not personally believe that super strong skunk hybrid monster 18%+ THC containing strands should be fully legalised (in fact i believe these super strong strains should be up-regulated), due to their motivation killing attributes.
A large part of the problem, as i see it, is the government's inability to fully differentiate between all the different forms of different drugs and their differing effects and consequences. However, i accept that they do not particularly want to be seen to engage the subject in this way, due to the possibility of this being seen as the condonement of illegal drug use.
I am sure the government would love to legalise cannabis, due to the tax revenues they would receive. The move is considered as just too radical for a large number of the voting public.
The crux of this discussion lies, i believe, with the nature of a substances usage, with over abuse having very different consequences from casual, occasional usage (exception-heroin. i do not believe anyone can truly engage in a purely recreational, occasional skag habit. opiates have far too great an efficacy for their receptors, and the bodies reaction far too profound to overcome these addictional properties fully. H is not good. ditto crack, in a whole different, violently ego propagating way).
However, this is pointing at the import of the subjective mentality of separate individuals, factors which legislation cannot begin to take into account. why, indeed, do some of us feel the need to alter the mode of our perception? Having identified our consciousness, we seem terminally intrigued to toy with it's modality, possibly learning more about it's nature in the process, but with what consequences? Should it not be each individuals personal choice? who is anyone to judge the weaknesses of the minds of their fellow men?
I personally believe that it is obscene that alcohol is a legal intoxicant and cannabis is not, a view supported by the previously mentioned link betwen alcohol and violence. I believe that the legalisation of weed would reduce the number of violent incidents recorded nationwide (as well as reducing the problem associated with the propagation of moralistically challenged individuals involved with H and CC by the purchasing of weed from such individuals).
I believe the argument concerning the progression from softer to harder drugs to be more a consequence of the mentality of individuals who began smoking in the first place, not denying that the contact with nasty individuals associated sometimes with weed purchase is not good, but this problem would dissolve upon the legalisation of the weed.
Alcohol, however, is not nearly so detrimental to an individuals compatability with the capitalistic system in place, which, in conjunction with it's clarity of thought supressing properties, makes it an ideal intoxicant for the corporate drone.
sorry bit long winded - got slightly carried away.
safe
EDITED_BY: vertferret (1114610760)
Sorry Dave, only just read this thread, so taking it back a bit....
re. cannabis schizophrenia - recent research has actually pointed to the possibility of an effect of THC (and other cannabinoids) converse to your assertion. ie. that for certain individuals, exogenous cannabinoid receptor agonists, such as THC, may actually reduce that individuals susceptibility to schizophrenic tendencies.
My own speculation on the basis for this points me towards the idea that THC etc. may (for some individuals) in fact reduce neurotic tendencies, thus reducing mental stress. I do not deny, however, that cannabis, as a psychoactive substance, may well enhance the possibility of an individual prone to schiz. developing the illness
(although the psychologist Laing proposes that the schizophrenic state is in fact a natural healing process of the mind, rebelling against the appaling state of mental/social alienation that our modernistic society propagates).
However, alcohol is also a psychoactive chemical, the abuse of which, as you have described, can have dire consequences (not necessarily confined to the individual themselves).
E must be taken in a wholely different context to dope, here, seeing as it directly messes with the dopamine regulated processes of the brain (dopamine being the only real physiological link identified with schiz. - if at all in doubt of your mental stability, don't do E! (or whizz, or K, or acid, or 2cb or mushies or mesc., or, god forbid, DMT...... etc.).
Cannabis psychosis is another widely acknowledged syndrome within the medical world, although the mental and social detriments associated with a reclusive, full on stoner lifestyle are fairly obvious. I do not personally believe that super strong skunk hybrid monster 18%+ THC containing strands should be fully legalised (in fact i believe these super strong strains should be up-regulated), due to their motivation killing attributes.
A large part of the problem, as i see it, is the government's inability to fully differentiate between all the different forms of different drugs and their differing effects and consequences. However, i accept that they do not particularly want to be seen to engage the subject in this way, due to the possibility of this being seen as the condonement of illegal drug use.
I am sure the government would love to legalise cannabis, due to the tax revenues they would receive. The move is considered as just too radical for a large number of the voting public.
The crux of this discussion lies, i believe, with the nature of a substances usage, with over abuse having very different consequences from casual, occasional usage (exception-heroin. i do not believe anyone can truly engage in a purely recreational, occasional skag habit. opiates have far too great an efficacy for their receptors, and the bodies reaction far too profound to overcome these addictional properties fully. H is not good. ditto crack, in a whole different, violently ego propagating way).
However, this is pointing at the import of the subjective mentality of separate individuals, factors which legislation cannot begin to take into account. why, indeed, do some of us feel the need to alter the mode of our perception? Having identified our consciousness, we seem terminally intrigued to toy with it's modality, possibly learning more about it's nature in the process, but with what consequences? Should it not be each individuals personal choice? who is anyone to judge the weaknesses of the minds of their fellow men?
I personally believe that it is obscene that alcohol is a legal intoxicant and cannabis is not, a view supported by the previously mentioned link betwen alcohol and violence. I believe that the legalisation of weed would reduce the number of violent incidents recorded nationwide (as well as reducing the problem associated with the propagation of moralistically challenged individuals involved with H and CC by the purchasing of weed from such individuals).
I believe the argument concerning the progression from softer to harder drugs to be more a consequence of the mentality of individuals who began smoking in the first place, not denying that the contact with nasty individuals associated sometimes with weed purchase is not good, but this problem would dissolve upon the legalisation of the weed.
Alcohol, however, is not nearly so detrimental to an individuals compatability with the capitalistic system in place, which, in conjunction with it's clarity of thought supressing properties, makes it an ideal intoxicant for the corporate drone.
sorry bit long winded - got slightly carried away.
safe
EDITED_BY: vertferret (1114610760)
the more i learn, the less i know!
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
Oh man, the lack of paragraphs in that post makes it so hard to read...
I live in a little town in the country in whiltshire, and down there, my skin and hair are clear and nice feeling, but when i go to london to see my mum, it gets real bad...
sorry, i seem to be continueing this off topic tangent.. ill shut up now
are u sure the nosebleeders wernt just wusses tho (joke)
... ive never heard of that happening before...
Oh man, the lack of paragraphs in that post makes it so hard to read...
Written by: Birgit
you're absolutely right there... my lab also works on environmental pollution, and one of the things that was published (in the popular science-newspaper-version) recently was that Glasgow air is like a 40-a-day smoking habit! I always feel slightly dizzy whenever I'm in London and have to take the tube, and the particles you get there are really too much - I agree completely. When my class went to London for a school trip, nearly everyone got greasy hair and lots of spots, and 4 or 5 people ended up with nosebleeds! (quite a difference to the "good country air" in small towns like the one I come from...)
I live in a little town in the country in whiltshire, and down there, my skin and hair are clear and nice feeling, but when i go to london to see my mum, it gets real bad...
sorry, i seem to be continueing this off topic tangent.. ill shut up now
are u sure the nosebleeders wernt just wusses tho (joke)
... ive never heard of that happening before... The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Firstly, could I request that, in future posts, you break up your text into paragraphs?
I don't want to come across as rude or anything, but solid blocks of text are incredibly difficult to read; because you're a newbie and because what you were saying was interesting, I made the effort; normally I'd skip over a post of solid text like that.
-------------------------------
I wouldn't be surprised if research did start to show possible beneficial aspects for mental health in some individuals, when using cannabis.
But I know just how complex is research on issues like this; there's generally contrasting views, and there's also issues concerning which organisation is doing the testing (and what their financial interests are), along with possible fundamental flaws in the methodology.
Generally, in cases where sets of research are giving contradictory results, i think of what I've experienced in my own life.
And I can honestly say that I can't think of anyone I've known whose mental health has improved when they started to smoke weed; I have, however, known a good ferw people who clearly were adversley affected mentally, during times when they smoked weed.
Also, remember that, as much as I consider marijuana use to be a bad idea, and as much as I advise people not to use it, or to 'experiement' with it- the fact remains that I once used it on a regular and prolonged basis.
I know what it does to the mind, and none of the effects IMO would enhance mental stability.
In the unlikely event that someone actually wanted to experience mental confusion, a lack of focus, paranoia, difficulties with organising, and a general slide of their life downwards and; moveover, wished to be totally unaware of these negative effects until they had progressed for quite some time- then acquiring a weed habit would be an excellent start.
Written by: vertferret
Sorry Dave, only just read this thread, so taking it back a bit....
re. cannabis schizophrenia - recent research has actually pointed to the possibility of an effect of THC (and other cannabinoids) converse to your assertion. ie. that for certain individuals, exogenous cannabinoid receptor agonists, such as THC, may actually reduce that individuals susceptibility to schizophrenic tendencies. My own speculation on the basis for this points me towards the idea that THC etc. may in fact reduce neurotic tendencies, thus reducing mental stress.
Firstly, could I request that, in future posts, you break up your text into paragraphs?
I don't want to come across as rude or anything, but solid blocks of text are incredibly difficult to read; because you're a newbie and because what you were saying was interesting, I made the effort; normally I'd skip over a post of solid text like that.
-------------------------------
I wouldn't be surprised if research did start to show possible beneficial aspects for mental health in some individuals, when using cannabis.
But I know just how complex is research on issues like this; there's generally contrasting views, and there's also issues concerning which organisation is doing the testing (and what their financial interests are), along with possible fundamental flaws in the methodology.
Generally, in cases where sets of research are giving contradictory results, i think of what I've experienced in my own life.
And I can honestly say that I can't think of anyone I've known whose mental health has improved when they started to smoke weed; I have, however, known a good ferw people who clearly were adversley affected mentally, during times when they smoked weed.
Also, remember that, as much as I consider marijuana use to be a bad idea, and as much as I advise people not to use it, or to 'experiement' with it- the fact remains that I once used it on a regular and prolonged basis.
I know what it does to the mind, and none of the effects IMO would enhance mental stability.
In the unlikely event that someone actually wanted to experience mental confusion, a lack of focus, paranoia, difficulties with organising, and a general slide of their life downwards and; moveover, wished to be totally unaware of these negative effects until they had progressed for quite some time- then acquiring a weed habit would be an excellent start.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
newbie
5 posts
5 posts
Posted:
sorry bout that people - my bad. i'll be good in future.
cheers all
(having had similar experience to yourself, dave, i must concur. just wanted to throw that schiz. thing into the melee)
sorry bout that people - my bad. i'll be good in future.
cheers all
(having had similar experience to yourself, dave, i must concur. just wanted to throw that schiz. thing into the melee)
the more i learn, the less i know!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave, now I’m really confused.
.lol. Dave, you seem to have a lot to say on a subject, for someone who professes not to have an opinion
Yes Dave, I think you are correct in the assumption that people see what you write as an opinion. For example you said:
It’s a fine line, but imo your point of view on prohibition did indicate support for prohibition.
Perhaps it’s your intention, but I find this very confusing. Because on one hand you express what appears to be an opinion, then turn around and professes not to have an opinion. Perhaps, it’s just a consequence of too much fence sitting
cheers
Dave, now I’m really confused.
Written by:
OWD said: As I've said before, I've no real opinion on whether or not marijuana should be legal or not- because ……
.lol. Dave, you seem to have a lot to say on a subject, for someone who professes not to have an opinion
Written by:
I suspect that some here see what I write and make assumptions about my opinion on bans, when I actually have not said whether or not I'd support such bans.
Yes Dave, I think you are correct in the assumption that people see what you write as an opinion. For example you said:
Written by:
I have argued often against some views put forward on this board that bans are inneffective……..I am pointing out what I see as invalid arguments based on misunderstanding (rather than argueing that bans should be in place).
It’s a fine line, but imo your point of view on prohibition did indicate support for prohibition.
Perhaps it’s your intention, but I find this very confusing. Because on one hand you express what appears to be an opinion, then turn around and professes not to have an opinion. Perhaps, it’s just a consequence of too much fence sitting
cheers
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I don't think I got across what I was trying to say properly... hmmm... how to say it...
IF someone wants to spike your drink, they're gonna do it, unless you build a glass wall around it. They can work in 2s or 3s and distract you while putting it in etc. So that's a problem that's there all the time, and the only safe thing is to be with people you know who can then realise something's wrong with you and get an ambulance instead of letting you go home with strangers. It's nothing that smoking bans will greatly influence.
I wasn't trying to say you can prevent it once you're alert enough, just that it's something you NEED to be alert of and try and take precautions (i.e. people with you) or take the risk.
I know I sound a bit harsh there, but to me it's just like driving a car on the motorway. There's always a risk, even if you're alert, that some
will do something incredibly stupid and kill you, and though it's not your fault, you know it may happen.
And now we're even more off-topic
Written by: Spanner
Have to disagree with you there though Birgit: I don't think you can possibly apply this to Coleman's point about Rohypnol. Counterfeit Rohypnol and other drugs which are commonly used in date rape cases, such as GHB, are not only colourless, odourless and tasteless, but extremely quick and simple to dissolve into a drink. It can happen in a less dangerous area and inevitably any pub a woman enters will be frequented by men she won't know. Even the most alert and sensible drinkers can get caught out.
I don't think I got across what I was trying to say properly... hmmm... how to say it...
IF someone wants to spike your drink, they're gonna do it, unless you build a glass wall around it. They can work in 2s or 3s and distract you while putting it in etc. So that's a problem that's there all the time, and the only safe thing is to be with people you know who can then realise something's wrong with you and get an ambulance instead of letting you go home with strangers. It's nothing that smoking bans will greatly influence.
I wasn't trying to say you can prevent it once you're alert enough, just that it's something you NEED to be alert of and try and take precautions (i.e. people with you) or take the risk.
I know I sound a bit harsh there, but to me it's just like driving a car on the motorway. There's always a risk, even if you're alert, that some
will do something incredibly stupid and kill you, and though it's not your fault, you know it may happen.And now we're even more off-topic
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Stone- This is what I'm talking about.
I see a line of reasoning-
'A' prohibition can't work because of 'B'
I pick up on several flaws in 'A', judge it to be invalid reasoning, and post both my reasons why it is invalid, and my opinion (that it is invalid).
Nowhere in there do I suggest that I believe prohibition is desirable.
Nowhere do i even suggest that I think prohibition can work.
All I'm saying is that one of the lines of reasoning which suggests prohibition can't work, is IMO wrong.
----------------
In terms of my actual views on forms of prohibition that, IMO, are good, I've been pretty straightforward-
1. I do support, fully, bans on smoking in public buildings, the workplace and pubs.
2. Where marijuana is concerned, I have said that I have no opinion about whether it should be legal, illegal, decriminalised etc
Primarily, this is because I do not know whether marijuana being legalised would lead to greater or lesser use. If I knew, or if there were convincing (to me) reasons indicating what effects it would have, then I would be inclined to form an opinion.
Another reason why I have no opinion on the matter is that I actually don't understand 'decriminalisation' etc; the recent UK re-classification of cannabis's legal status is something that I found totally confusing (as did many others), with some pointing out that downgrading its status actually, in some cases, made possession a more serious offence.
And, lastly, it's not an issue that I want to get involved in, or feel that I can say anything particularly useful on.
So yes, currently, I have no opinion on whether marijuana should be illegal/legal/decriminalised.
I very much feel that use of weed is inadvisable, that those use do use it are doing themselves a disservice, that most, if not all, of the pro-marijuana propaganda is rubbish etc, etc; none of that leads me to say it should, or should not, be banned.
Stone- This is what I'm talking about.
I see a line of reasoning-
'A' prohibition can't work because of 'B'
I pick up on several flaws in 'A', judge it to be invalid reasoning, and post both my reasons why it is invalid, and my opinion (that it is invalid).
Nowhere in there do I suggest that I believe prohibition is desirable.
Nowhere do i even suggest that I think prohibition can work.
All I'm saying is that one of the lines of reasoning which suggests prohibition can't work, is IMO wrong.
----------------
In terms of my actual views on forms of prohibition that, IMO, are good, I've been pretty straightforward-
1. I do support, fully, bans on smoking in public buildings, the workplace and pubs.
2. Where marijuana is concerned, I have said that I have no opinion about whether it should be legal, illegal, decriminalised etc
Primarily, this is because I do not know whether marijuana being legalised would lead to greater or lesser use. If I knew, or if there were convincing (to me) reasons indicating what effects it would have, then I would be inclined to form an opinion.
Another reason why I have no opinion on the matter is that I actually don't understand 'decriminalisation' etc; the recent UK re-classification of cannabis's legal status is something that I found totally confusing (as did many others), with some pointing out that downgrading its status actually, in some cases, made possession a more serious offence.
And, lastly, it's not an issue that I want to get involved in, or feel that I can say anything particularly useful on.
So yes, currently, I have no opinion on whether marijuana should be illegal/legal/decriminalised.
I very much feel that use of weed is inadvisable, that those use do use it are doing themselves a disservice, that most, if not all, of the pro-marijuana propaganda is rubbish etc, etc; none of that leads me to say it should, or should not, be banned.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
nowhere did i suggest that my analogy invalidated your opinions on a smoking ban - if you felt it invalidated your opinions, i think that is more to do with your interpretation of what i said, not what i actually wrote.
like i said before the post that contained my car pollution argument, i don't necessarily disagree with smoking bans in pubs but when i see an argument that purports to be more than it really is, i like to point it out.
the first point in your argument was ""1. smoking in pubs/public buildings is an infringement on my right to breathe clean air, and the rights of other non-smokers"".
i offered another case in which our personal liberties could be reduced in favour of the health of the greater population.
i did not say that it invalidated your argument on smoking bans.
i offered it to show that if the health of workers or fellow citizens was really the major concern, many things could be done that would protect it just as well if not better than banning smoking in pubs would.
i was asking the question "is it fair to reduce the choices that people are free to make at this kind of level when many other things could be done that would protect your 'right to breathe clean air' at a much higher level (i.e. would make a much larger difference)".
the only way my analogy could have invalidated your point is if your *whole* line of argument was that "smoking has a detrimental effect on others' health and thus should be banned in public".
i don't think its very fair that you permit yourself to present arguments that do not necessarily represent your opinions (c.f. your dialogue with stone on prohibition above) and then when i do similar, accuse me of trying to use a 'linguistic trick' to unfairly invalidate your point, to somehow confuse or distract from the overall focus of your thread.
i realise that as an ex-smoker, this subject is something you feel very stongly about - strongly enough to label anyone who wishes to smoke a cigarette whilst spinning poi in public as as irresponsible jerks sending the wrong message to kids and suggest that their motivation in doing this is focussed around 'endeavouring to look cool' - a highly judgemental and skewed view imho...
you seem to be suggesting that if i do not feel stongly enough about the car pollution problem to have 'done something about it', then my arguments do not have any worth.
just because i do not believe that a ban on short journey usage of cars is something that i feel very stongly about, or even think is a very practical solution, does not mean that my point is invalid either - the simple truth remains that banning cars for short journies would do more for improving public health than banning smoking in pubs would.
the fact that i have a choice to go into a pub or not but do not have a choice of whether or not i breathe car fumes on my way to and from work shows that the bigger problem on the 'infringement to breathe clean air' line of thinking is the car pollution problem.
if you want to extrapolate a hidden meaning from this assertion, then rather than it being that i'm "trying to use linguistic tricks to detract from your argument", try "bigger problems are usually addressed before smaller problems" instead.
at least then you don't get to dismiss my point that the 'clean air in pubs' argument is weak and the fact that fundamentally, if you are worried about your health when around smokers, that you have the choice of whether or not to enter into a smoky pub in the first place.
i know that pubs are smoky and that people drink alcohol in there.
if i don't want to hang around smokers and drinkers, i don't go to a pub.
there are plenty of pubs and bars nowdays that have good air conditioning and no-smoking areas.
if your problem is that you don't like smoky pubs, find somewhere that is less smoky and take your business there.
however, if you have the problem that the people you wish to socialise with like smoking cigarettes whilst drinking alcohol in pubs, then you have a different problem entirely.
cole. x
Written by: onewheeldaveWritten by: coleman
well, i don't feel that strongly about it.
i was just using it as an analogy to something you do seem to care strongly about and show that if you ban one thing based on a 'the greater good' argument then you should carry that out through all aspects of society, not just one.
I consider that line of argument is very common, yet IMO, invalid.
I've put forward my reasoning about A, and you've brought up an analogous situation B; and then claimed that if I'm going to support/promote A, I should feel obliged to also push for B- along with the implication that my refusal to promote b,in some way invalidates A.
nowhere did i suggest that my analogy invalidated your opinions on a smoking ban - if you felt it invalidated your opinions, i think that is more to do with your interpretation of what i said, not what i actually wrote.
like i said before the post that contained my car pollution argument, i don't necessarily disagree with smoking bans in pubs but when i see an argument that purports to be more than it really is, i like to point it out.
the first point in your argument was ""1. smoking in pubs/public buildings is an infringement on my right to breathe clean air, and the rights of other non-smokers"".
i offered another case in which our personal liberties could be reduced in favour of the health of the greater population.
i did not say that it invalidated your argument on smoking bans.
i offered it to show that if the health of workers or fellow citizens was really the major concern, many things could be done that would protect it just as well if not better than banning smoking in pubs would.
i was asking the question "is it fair to reduce the choices that people are free to make at this kind of level when many other things could be done that would protect your 'right to breathe clean air' at a much higher level (i.e. would make a much larger difference)".
the only way my analogy could have invalidated your point is if your *whole* line of argument was that "smoking has a detrimental effect on others' health and thus should be banned in public".
i don't think its very fair that you permit yourself to present arguments that do not necessarily represent your opinions (c.f. your dialogue with stone on prohibition above) and then when i do similar, accuse me of trying to use a 'linguistic trick' to unfairly invalidate your point, to somehow confuse or distract from the overall focus of your thread.
i realise that as an ex-smoker, this subject is something you feel very stongly about - strongly enough to label anyone who wishes to smoke a cigarette whilst spinning poi in public as as irresponsible jerks sending the wrong message to kids and suggest that their motivation in doing this is focussed around 'endeavouring to look cool' - a highly judgemental and skewed view imho...
you seem to be suggesting that if i do not feel stongly enough about the car pollution problem to have 'done something about it', then my arguments do not have any worth.
just because i do not believe that a ban on short journey usage of cars is something that i feel very stongly about, or even think is a very practical solution, does not mean that my point is invalid either - the simple truth remains that banning cars for short journies would do more for improving public health than banning smoking in pubs would.
the fact that i have a choice to go into a pub or not but do not have a choice of whether or not i breathe car fumes on my way to and from work shows that the bigger problem on the 'infringement to breathe clean air' line of thinking is the car pollution problem.
if you want to extrapolate a hidden meaning from this assertion, then rather than it being that i'm "trying to use linguistic tricks to detract from your argument", try "bigger problems are usually addressed before smaller problems" instead.
at least then you don't get to dismiss my point that the 'clean air in pubs' argument is weak and the fact that fundamentally, if you are worried about your health when around smokers, that you have the choice of whether or not to enter into a smoky pub in the first place.
i know that pubs are smoky and that people drink alcohol in there.
if i don't want to hang around smokers and drinkers, i don't go to a pub.
there are plenty of pubs and bars nowdays that have good air conditioning and no-smoking areas.
if your problem is that you don't like smoky pubs, find somewhere that is less smoky and take your business there.
however, if you have the problem that the people you wish to socialise with like smoking cigarettes whilst drinking alcohol in pubs, then you have a different problem entirely.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
SILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
Posted:
Oooh, One Wheel Dave is sparking a lot of controversy!
I like reading this thread, it's got a strong 'debate club' feel to it. I agree mostly with VertFerret. We all have different reasons for our escapism, and thus our relationships with certain drugs. The reasons we have behind seeking the effects of these things, I think these have more to do with the possible negative consequences and outcomes.
I do not like getting drunk, and I do not like it when people get aggressive attitudes because they are drunk. But I wouldn't dream of stopping my dad from having a quiet pint or two on a sunday. My friends drink, but they do not get aggressive.
I like smoking weed and I have for years, but I object to being told I actually 'experience mental confusion, a lack of focus, paranoia, difficulties with organising, and a general slide of [my] life downwards' except I am obviously too stoned to realise what's happening.
I've seen people go downhill from smoking too much, but not everyone goes that way. Similarly, I found cannabis did wonders for me when I used to have bad panic attacks, although I understand it could make some people worse. I am not confused or paranoid, no more so than I was before I ever smoked. I live an active life, I work, I study, and I smoke weed. I am happy.
Oooh, One Wheel Dave is sparking a lot of controversy!
I like reading this thread, it's got a strong 'debate club' feel to it. I agree mostly with VertFerret. We all have different reasons for our escapism, and thus our relationships with certain drugs. The reasons we have behind seeking the effects of these things, I think these have more to do with the possible negative consequences and outcomes.
I do not like getting drunk, and I do not like it when people get aggressive attitudes because they are drunk. But I wouldn't dream of stopping my dad from having a quiet pint or two on a sunday. My friends drink, but they do not get aggressive.
I like smoking weed and I have for years, but I object to being told I actually 'experience mental confusion, a lack of focus, paranoia, difficulties with organising, and a general slide of [my] life downwards' except I am obviously too stoned to realise what's happening.
I've seen people go downhill from smoking too much, but not everyone goes that way. Similarly, I found cannabis did wonders for me when I used to have bad panic attacks, although I understand it could make some people worse. I am not confused or paranoid, no more so than I was before I ever smoked. I live an active life, I work, I study, and I smoke weed. I am happy.
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
You've put a lot into your reply, and, if I posted a reply to yours, I'd also put a lot into it.
As its pretty much about interpretation- what you've interpreted me as saying, and what I've interpreted you as saying- shall we just say that there's probably been some misunderstanding on one or both sides, and leave it at that?
=============
I guess things are changing; ten years ago there wasn't really a choice as virtually all pubs allowed smoking.
Now, the percentage of non-smoking pubs is rising.
I guess if the proportion of pubs that disallowed smoking, to pubs that allowed it; was in pretty much the same ratio as non-smokers to smokers- then that could be seen as fair.
(Although there would still be possible issues about health and safety for pub workers that would have to be addressed).
I do feel the need to point out that the growth in non-smoking pubs is fueled mainly by the industry realising that all-out bans are looking imminent, and by the fact that all-out bans eslewhere are being viewed as successful.
Maybe if the industry had been a bit more pro-active about this many years ago, a 50/50 mix of smoking and non-smoking pubs could be a possible reality; but they didn't.
------------
Concerning choice-
you mention that a non-smoker can choose to not enter a smoking pub.
Fair enough, but that same non-smoker has the choice to endeavour to bring about a change.
He/she can decide that, actually, they're not happy about smoking being allowed in that,or any other pub, and that they're not going to just leave it, they're going to campaign, legislate or use other means, to bring about change.
That's a choice too.
And it's the choice I've made.
Written by: coleman
nowhere did i suggest that my analogy invalidated your opinions on a smoking ban - if you felt it invalidated your opinions, i think that is more to do with your interpretation of what i said, not what i actually wrote.
You've put a lot into your reply, and, if I posted a reply to yours, I'd also put a lot into it.
As its pretty much about interpretation- what you've interpreted me as saying, and what I've interpreted you as saying- shall we just say that there's probably been some misunderstanding on one or both sides, and leave it at that?
=============
Written by: coleman
at least then you don't get to dismiss my point that the 'clean air in pubs' argument is weak and the fact that fundamentally, if you are worried about your health when around smokers, that you have the choice of whether or not to enter into a smoky pub in the first place.
i know that pubs are smoky and that people drink alcohol in there.
if i don't want to hang around smokers and drinkers, i don't go to a pub.
there are plenty of pubs and bars nowdays that have good air conditioning and no-smoking areas.
if your problem is that you don't like smoky pubs, find somewhere that is less smoky and take your business there.
I guess things are changing; ten years ago there wasn't really a choice as virtually all pubs allowed smoking.
Now, the percentage of non-smoking pubs is rising.
I guess if the proportion of pubs that disallowed smoking, to pubs that allowed it; was in pretty much the same ratio as non-smokers to smokers- then that could be seen as fair.
(Although there would still be possible issues about health and safety for pub workers that would have to be addressed).
I do feel the need to point out that the growth in non-smoking pubs is fueled mainly by the industry realising that all-out bans are looking imminent, and by the fact that all-out bans eslewhere are being viewed as successful.
Maybe if the industry had been a bit more pro-active about this many years ago, a 50/50 mix of smoking and non-smoking pubs could be a possible reality; but they didn't.
------------
Concerning choice-
you mention that a non-smoker can choose to not enter a smoking pub.
Fair enough, but that same non-smoker has the choice to endeavour to bring about a change.
He/she can decide that, actually, they're not happy about smoking being allowed in that,or any other pub, and that they're not going to just leave it, they're going to campaign, legislate or use other means, to bring about change.
That's a choice too.
And it's the choice I've made.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I didn't tell you that; I don't know you, I can't comment on your mental state.
it was meant quite literally, if someone wanted to experience some or all of the above, in all seriousness, smoking dope would probably be the easiest way to do it.
I don't smoke (weed or tobacco); but I did; I know what it does.
It'd be quite right to point out that I can't extrapolate from that, that it will have the same effect on everyone.
But, as well as experience it's effect on me, I've also seen it's effects on a lot of other people. Through university and for years afterwards I hung out with stoners, of all levels of consumption.
At the end of the day, I'm giving my opinion, based on my experiences and what I've seen.
Written by: The Tea Fairy
I like smoking weed and I have for years, but I object to being told I actually 'experience mental confusion, a lack of focus, paranoia, difficulties with organising, and a general slide of [my] life downwards' except I am obviously too stoned to realise what's happening.
I didn't tell you that; I don't know you, I can't comment on your mental state.
Written by: onewheeldave
In the unlikely event that someone actually wanted to experience mental confusion, a lack of focus, paranoia, difficulties with organising, and a general slide of their life downwards and; moveover, wished to be totally unaware of these negative effects until they had progressed for quite some time- then acquiring a weed habit would be an excellent start.
it was meant quite literally, if someone wanted to experience some or all of the above, in all seriousness, smoking dope would probably be the easiest way to do it.
I don't smoke (weed or tobacco); but I did; I know what it does.
It'd be quite right to point out that I can't extrapolate from that, that it will have the same effect on everyone.
But, as well as experience it's effect on me, I've also seen it's effects on a lot of other people. Through university and for years afterwards I hung out with stoners, of all levels of consumption.
At the end of the day, I'm giving my opinion, based on my experiences and what I've seen.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
as to the misunderstanding business - that seems fine by me
fair enough also.
trying to change the atmosphere of a place you regularly visit to socialise with your friends is completely understandable.
but i don't really get why why one would want to make this change nationwide rather then on a local level to you?
and i just one extra bonus leading question...
do you drink alcohol?
cole. x
as to the misunderstanding business - that seems fine by me
Written by: onewheeldave
Concerning choice-
you mention that a non-smoker can choose to not enter a smoking pub.
Fair enough, but that same non-smoker has the choice to endeavour to bring about a change.
He/she can decide that, actually, they're not happy about smoking being allowed in that,or any other pub, and that they're not going to just leave it, they're going to campaign, legislate or use other means, to bring about change.
That's a choice too.
And it's the choice I've made.
fair enough also.
trying to change the atmosphere of a place you regularly visit to socialise with your friends is completely understandable.
but i don't really get why why one would want to make this change nationwide rather then on a local level to you?
and i just one extra bonus leading question...
do you drink alcohol?
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I don't smoke at all. As a nicotine addict I abstain 100% where nicotine is concerned.
I do not have a drink problem, so I can, and do, drink- it tends to be very, very, occasional.
One thing I did when successfully quitting cigarettes was to cease drinking/pubbing for a while; this was to avoid the 'I'm slightly drunk, suddenly it doesn't seem that important to avoid having 'just one' cigarette'- which is the downfall of so many quitting attempts.
And when I was clear of the nicotine addiction, and it was safe to drink, I found out that I had no real desire to do so with any frequency. I also found that even small quantities of alcohol affected me, due to lowered tolerance, for example I'd often feel a bit ill the next day.
In pubs, I drink coke or water; over the past two years I'd put my estimated alcohol comsumption at <8 pints.
I also stopped marijuana use, again because of the 'it's not a cigarette, it's a spliff...it'll be OK..' line.
After escaping nicotine addiction I did on a couple of occasions, use dope- without tobacco, smoked pure, to get stoned.
Bizarrely, I discovered that being stoned was unpleasant; I'm fairly sure that a prime factor in my past marijuana use was the tobacco factor.
Written by: coleman
and i just one extra bonus leading question...
do you drink alcohol?
I don't smoke at all. As a nicotine addict I abstain 100% where nicotine is concerned.
I do not have a drink problem, so I can, and do, drink- it tends to be very, very, occasional.
One thing I did when successfully quitting cigarettes was to cease drinking/pubbing for a while; this was to avoid the 'I'm slightly drunk, suddenly it doesn't seem that important to avoid having 'just one' cigarette'- which is the downfall of so many quitting attempts.
And when I was clear of the nicotine addiction, and it was safe to drink, I found out that I had no real desire to do so with any frequency. I also found that even small quantities of alcohol affected me, due to lowered tolerance, for example I'd often feel a bit ill the next day.
In pubs, I drink coke or water; over the past two years I'd put my estimated alcohol comsumption at <8 pints.
I also stopped marijuana use, again because of the 'it's not a cigarette, it's a spliff...it'll be OK..' line.
After escaping nicotine addiction I did on a couple of occasions, use dope- without tobacco, smoked pure, to get stoned.
Bizarrely, I discovered that being stoned was unpleasant; I'm fairly sure that a prime factor in my past marijuana use was the tobacco factor.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
1. It means that wherever I find myself, there'll be a local smoke-free pub.
2. That all other non-smokers can go to pubs with clean air.
3. That smoking is perceived as less normal and less acceptable; so a greater proportion of the next generation of potential victims, may be spared the illness, misery and death; which go along with nicotine addiction.
Written by: coleman
fair enough also.
trying to change the atmosphere of a place you regularly visit to socialise with your friends is completely understandable.
but i don't really get why why one would want to make this change nationwide rather then on a local level to you?
1. It means that wherever I find myself, there'll be a local smoke-free pub.
2. That all other non-smokers can go to pubs with clean air.
3. That smoking is perceived as less normal and less acceptable; so a greater proportion of the next generation of potential victims, may be spared the illness, misery and death; which go along with nicotine addiction.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
cool - cheers for that dave.
just read this whole thread again
after my last post, i was going to follow a line of argument such as "if you don't really drink that much, why do you have such a vested interest in what goes on in public drinking houses?".
but after reading back through, you have already covered that when you said that pubs are primarily where british adults socialise and that's fair enough.
your last two posts make a lot of sense, especially points 1 & 2 above.
it is point 3 i still don't agree with entirely.
if a smoker/drinker is told that they are no longer allowed to comfortably smoke and drink at the same time in pubs (where the most impressionable poeple - children - are often not allowed in), what is their alternative?
as far as i can tell, if they want to smoke and drink in comfort, they would have to do so in their own homes.
i understand the argument that says 'if smoking is less acceptable, the next generation may be less likely to take it up' but i do not think a smoking ban in pubs would have much effect on the acceptableness (is that a word?!) of smoking.
it would mean more people sitting at home smoking in front of their kids - and nothing says 'acceptable' more to a young child than what they see their parents doing.
as far as the theory of 'having to smoke outside makes smoking less normal/acceptable/sociable' goes, it has already been proved wrong in ireland through the 'smirting' phenomenon.
people who would have never approached each other inside a busy pub find themselves smoking outside in a less hectic environment and have an opportunity to flirt.
"if we didn't smoke, we would never have met."
humans are very adaptable and unfortunately, i think this adaptability extends to finding ways of being happy and finding positives whilst slowly killing themselves through smoking.
i do however have the optimistic view that smoking will die out slowly over the next 50 years.
i just had a quick look to see if i was being hopelessly optimistic and found this which seems to support what i hope will be the case.
believe it or not, i am actually for a ban on smoking in pubs, as much for the general move towards a society without cigarettes as for my own selfish/personal reasons - i would smoke less cigarettes whilst out drinking as a result of a ban and that is a good thing for me
but as i have said above, i'm not sure it would do wonders for cutting the numbers of new smokers if have any effect at all.
i think it it would help to reduce the quantity of cigartettes the current generation of smokers consumes.
and as dave has said over and over, it would indeed make pubs more pleasent places to be.
cheers to everyone who has contributed to this thread so far - has been lots of fun talking about this stuff, and has been pretty informative too
cole. x
cool - cheers for that dave.
just read this whole thread again
after my last post, i was going to follow a line of argument such as "if you don't really drink that much, why do you have such a vested interest in what goes on in public drinking houses?".
but after reading back through, you have already covered that when you said that pubs are primarily where british adults socialise and that's fair enough.
your last two posts make a lot of sense, especially points 1 & 2 above.
it is point 3 i still don't agree with entirely.
if a smoker/drinker is told that they are no longer allowed to comfortably smoke and drink at the same time in pubs (where the most impressionable poeple - children - are often not allowed in), what is their alternative?
as far as i can tell, if they want to smoke and drink in comfort, they would have to do so in their own homes.
i understand the argument that says 'if smoking is less acceptable, the next generation may be less likely to take it up' but i do not think a smoking ban in pubs would have much effect on the acceptableness (is that a word?!
) of smoking.it would mean more people sitting at home smoking in front of their kids - and nothing says 'acceptable' more to a young child than what they see their parents doing.
as far as the theory of 'having to smoke outside makes smoking less normal/acceptable/sociable' goes, it has already been proved wrong in ireland through the 'smirting' phenomenon.
people who would have never approached each other inside a busy pub find themselves smoking outside in a less hectic environment and have an opportunity to flirt.
"if we didn't smoke, we would never have met."
humans are very adaptable and unfortunately, i think this adaptability extends to finding ways of being happy and finding positives whilst slowly killing themselves through smoking.
i do however have the optimistic view that smoking will die out slowly over the next 50 years.
i just had a quick look to see if i was being hopelessly optimistic and found this which seems to support what i hope will be the case.
believe it or not, i am actually for a ban on smoking in pubs, as much for the general move towards a society without cigarettes as for my own selfish/personal reasons - i would smoke less cigarettes whilst out drinking as a result of a ban and that is a good thing for me
but as i have said above, i'm not sure it would do wonders for cutting the numbers of new smokers if have any effect at all.
i think it it would help to reduce the quantity of cigartettes the current generation of smokers consumes.
and as dave has said over and over, it would indeed make pubs more pleasent places to be.
cheers to everyone who has contributed to this thread so far - has been lots of fun talking about this stuff, and has been pretty informative too
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
Personally I don't think any of them should be illegal. From crack to asprin.
What I put in my body that has no direct impact on others is my choice, not the people I pay to look after the admin of the Country. If I o/d then I've paid for a health service/insurance to take care of me, hopfeully education means I won't. If I die then it's unfortunate but I could die crossing a street and it would have been my choice to cross too.
I would like to see more information available to educate the masses on the pro/cons of (miss)use and see them in a positive light as apposed to the negative light they are always reflected in. Dependancy would reduce for sure, thus so would related crime rates.
Over use/dose would also be reduced dramatically with proper legal preparation and dosing techniques, o/d only really happens when a 'good' batch is sold and is much purer and stronger when compared to the regular batch.
Drugs, Heroin for example, are actually very clean and healthy drugs with no real long term effects (please keep reading). But, because its production only exists in the black market it is not made in the extremely sterile environment it requires. This causes the "smack head" effect you see when they're all haggard and broken teeth etc. Herion used to be a very high class drug 100 years ago, life long users would be the highest members of society running businesses and the like without problem.
I think the teaching, ideas and opinions of Aldous Huxley would go a long long way in modern drug culture. Unfortunately drugs are 'illegal' thus making them exciting, there is very little education around that helps individuals make an informed choice apart from the obviousl 'take them you'll die' type of poropagander. And no suppliers who stick to (or have any) guidelines or dosing/blending techniques.
Drugs are far greater threat to society while they remain illegal, if they had been treated with respect, non political/religious recomendations and researched properly in hte last 100 years I'm sure we'd be in a far better position than we are now.
As for dope being illegal, it rediculous that a plant in it's natural form is outlawed, that goes for mushrooms too. There are thousands of plants with more dangers from poison that grow in our gardens and river banks.
One thing folks might like to know is that in the miriad of theories about why we've developed as a race from ape to man; one of them is that we took these mushrooms and their effect actually caused us to be 'self aware'....thus forwarding our evolution! If it's true, which is as likely as any other theory, we should be thankful for them not dismissing of their value.
Ultimately I think these type of drugs we speak about are a short cut to a state we all strive to reach (even if we kow it or not) and can reach through our own 'soba' conciousness. But without the correct education, guidance and stimulation we will continue to use these substances as our escape.
Personally I don't think any of them should be illegal. From crack to asprin.
What I put in my body that has no direct impact on others is my choice, not the people I pay to look after the admin of the Country. If I o/d then I've paid for a health service/insurance to take care of me, hopfeully education means I won't. If I die then it's unfortunate but I could die crossing a street and it would have been my choice to cross too.
I would like to see more information available to educate the masses on the pro/cons of (miss)use and see them in a positive light as apposed to the negative light they are always reflected in. Dependancy would reduce for sure, thus so would related crime rates.
Over use/dose would also be reduced dramatically with proper legal preparation and dosing techniques, o/d only really happens when a 'good' batch is sold and is much purer and stronger when compared to the regular batch.
Drugs, Heroin for example, are actually very clean and healthy drugs with no real long term effects (please keep reading). But, because its production only exists in the black market it is not made in the extremely sterile environment it requires. This causes the "smack head" effect you see when they're all haggard and broken teeth etc. Herion used to be a very high class drug 100 years ago, life long users would be the highest members of society running businesses and the like without problem.
I think the teaching, ideas and opinions of Aldous Huxley would go a long long way in modern drug culture. Unfortunately drugs are 'illegal' thus making them exciting, there is very little education around that helps individuals make an informed choice apart from the obviousl 'take them you'll die' type of poropagander. And no suppliers who stick to (or have any) guidelines or dosing/blending techniques.
Drugs are far greater threat to society while they remain illegal, if they had been treated with respect, non political/religious recomendations and researched properly in hte last 100 years I'm sure we'd be in a far better position than we are now.
As for dope being illegal, it rediculous that a plant in it's natural form is outlawed, that goes for mushrooms too. There are thousands of plants with more dangers from poison that grow in our gardens and river banks.
One thing folks might like to know is that in the miriad of theories about why we've developed as a race from ape to man; one of them is that we took these mushrooms and their effect actually caused us to be 'self aware'....thus forwarding our evolution! If it's true, which is as likely as any other theory, we should be thankful for them not dismissing of their value.
Ultimately I think these type of drugs we speak about are a short cut to a state we all strive to reach (even if we kow it or not) and can reach through our own 'soba' conciousness. But without the correct education, guidance and stimulation we will continue to use these substances as our escape.
Let's relight this forum 
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'One thing folks might like to know is that in the miriad of theories about why we've developed as a race from ape to man; one of them is that we took these mushrooms and their effect actually caused us to be 'self aware'....thus forwarding our evolution! If it's true, which is as likely as any other theory, we should be thankful for them not dismissing of their value.
Hang on a second. The ape-man development is genetic. Drugs impact on your state of mind, but they don't change your DNA. Hence mushrooms can't have 'forwarded our evolution'. It's just not as likely to be true as other theories.
Having said that, I probably share your view of psychedelics as mind-expanders. I'm also aware of the damage that they can do (I've seen it; it's not pretty).
And yes, I think that legalisation has much going for it, since it would facilitate a) quality control and b) distribution of information. But that's just my opinion, and, to be honest, I don't think I'm well enough informed to make a judgement.
Interestingly, Derek Parfit [in his 'reasons and persons'] makes an argument against the view that 'it's my body, so i can do with it what I like'. His line (which buddhists will be sympathetic to) is that since personal identity isn't anything strict, or metaphysically grounded, your 'future selves' are different people to yourself, just as other people [e.g. your mates] are. Given this, if you're not allowed to poison your mates, you shouldn't be allowed to poison your future selves.
Just a thought.
'One thing folks might like to know is that in the miriad of theories about why we've developed as a race from ape to man; one of them is that we took these mushrooms and their effect actually caused us to be 'self aware'....thus forwarding our evolution! If it's true, which is as likely as any other theory, we should be thankful for them not dismissing of their value.
Hang on a second. The ape-man development is genetic. Drugs impact on your state of mind, but they don't change your DNA. Hence mushrooms can't have 'forwarded our evolution'. It's just not as likely to be true as other theories.
Having said that, I probably share your view of psychedelics as mind-expanders. I'm also aware of the damage that they can do (I've seen it; it's not pretty).
And yes, I think that legalisation has much going for it, since it would facilitate a) quality control and b) distribution of information. But that's just my opinion, and, to be honest, I don't think I'm well enough informed to make a judgement.
Interestingly, Derek Parfit [in his 'reasons and persons'] makes an argument against the view that 'it's my body, so i can do with it what I like'. His line (which buddhists will be sympathetic to) is that since personal identity isn't anything strict, or metaphysically grounded, your 'future selves' are different people to yourself, just as other people [e.g. your mates] are. Given this, if you're not allowed to poison your mates, you shouldn't be allowed to poison your future selves.
Just a thought.
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Drugs do impact on others though, especially in the cases where people can't control them, which is what the whole legislation thing is supposed to be about.
Written by: Dunc
Personally I don't think any of them should be illegal. From crack to asprin.
What I put in my body that has no direct impact on others is my choice, not the people I pay to look after the admin of the Country.
Drugs do impact on others though, especially in the cases where people can't control them, which is what the whole legislation thing is supposed to be about.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think you miss the point I was trying to make Birgit. With adequate education and understanding I believe there wouldn't be the high level of dependancy and lack of (personal) control. You actually quoted what I said and still missed it, maybe this will help clarify my point a little.
I think you're looking to closely at the symptoms of evolution Quiet, not the root causes for it.
We didn't evolve because our DNA mutated, our DNA mutated because we were evolving! If, thats IF the theory of psychedelics bump starting our evolution by stimulating our Self Awareness (the single big thing that seperates us from virtually all species on the plant, knowing that 'We Are' or 'I Am') are true, it would have been long long before we'd see any genetic developments/mutations/evolution. They would simply occur as we evolve to suit our new thought processes, ideas and surroundings.
Then again, evolution itself is still only a Darwinian theory yet to be proved, although I do beleive it myself.
But anyway we drift from topic as usual, sorry Dave
I think you miss the point I was trying to make Birgit. With adequate education and understanding I believe there wouldn't be the high level of dependancy and lack of (personal) control. You actually quoted what I said and still missed it, maybe this will help clarify my point a little.
Written by: me
What I put in my body that has no direct impact on others is my choice, not the people I pay to look after the admin of the Country
Written by: Quiet quoting moi
'One thing folks might like to know is that in the miriad of theories about why we've developed as a race from ape to man; one of them is that we took these mushrooms and their effect actually caused us to be 'self aware'....thus forwarding our evolution! If it's true, which is as likely as any other theory, we should be thankful for them not dismissing of their value.
=======
Hang on a second. The ape-man development is genetic. Drugs impact on your state of mind, but they don't change your DNA. Hence mushrooms can't have 'forwarded our evolution'. It's just not as likely to be true as other theories
I think you're looking to closely at the symptoms of evolution Quiet, not the root causes for it.
We didn't evolve because our DNA mutated, our DNA mutated because we were evolving! If, thats IF the theory of psychedelics bump starting our evolution by stimulating our Self Awareness (the single big thing that seperates us from virtually all species on the plant, knowing that 'We Are' or 'I Am') are true, it would have been long long before we'd see any genetic developments/mutations/evolution. They would simply occur as we evolve to suit our new thought processes, ideas and surroundings.
Then again, evolution itself is still only a Darwinian theory yet to be proved, although I do beleive it myself.
But anyway we drift from topic as usual, sorry Dave
Let's relight this forum
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'll just remind everyone of the central question that was posted in the first post of this thread-
Posts such as this are valid opinions, but, unless evidence/reasoning is provided to substantiate them, they are nothing but opinion.
Sounds interesting, though, IMO, somewhat unlikely; again, is there any evidence/reasoning behind this assertion?
There's lots of theories like that, including one that humanities evolution was fueled by cannibalism- specifically the eating of brains.
I could advance a theory which goes as follows-
'humanities evolution was set to advance in such a way that by the year 2000, humankind would have advanced to such a degree that all humans would have achieved individual mastery of their own minds and emotions; violence (for example) would have been a thing of the past.
Unfortunately, the widespread consumption of narcotic substances (including alcohol, cannabis, tobacco etc) throughout that evolution, hindered it to such an extent that humanity fell far short of its potential, and achieved only partial civilisation.'
It's just a theory, could be false, could be true- it's certainly as valid as any other unsubstantiated theory.
I'll just remind everyone of the central question that was posted in the first post of this thread-
Written by: onewheeldave- from first post of this thread
This post is in connection with the often quoted view that legal drugs (alcohol/tobacco) cause more problems than many illegal ones (marijuana, 'e', mushrooms).
It is true that the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are responsible for far more suffering tham marijuana, 'e' and mushrooms.
Alcohol fuels the friday/saturday night casuality 'carnage'/street violence that is rife in the UK; tobacco is responsible for 4,000,000 smoking related deaths per year worldwide (that's more than all other drugs put together.
And this fact is often brought up by those who are against legislation for marijuana, 'e', mushrooms etc.
-----------------------
Just to put a different slant on this; is it not possible that a contributing factor to the devastation caused by the legal drugs, is precisely the fact that they are legal, and thus easily obtainable and usable in public?
..........................................
Written by: Dunc
Drugs are far greater threat to society while they remain illegal, if they had been treated with respect, non political/religious recomendations and researched properly in hte last 100 years I'm sure we'd be in a far better position than we are now.
As for dope being illegal, it rediculous that a plant in it's natural form is outlawed, that goes for mushrooms too. There are thousands of plants with more dangers from poison that grow in our gardens and river banks.
Posts such as this are valid opinions, but, unless evidence/reasoning is provided to substantiate them, they are nothing but opinion.
Written by: Dunc
This causes the "smack head" effect you see when they're all haggard and broken teeth etc. Herion used to be a very high class drug 100 years ago, life long users would be the highest members of society running businesses and the like without problem.
Sounds interesting, though, IMO, somewhat unlikely; again, is there any evidence/reasoning behind this assertion?
Written by: Dunc
One thing folks might like to know is that in the miriad of theories about why we've developed as a race from ape to man; one of them is that we took these mushrooms and their effect actually caused us to be 'self aware'....thus forwarding our evolution! If it's true, which is as likely as any other theory, we should be thankful for them not dismissing of their value.
There's lots of theories like that, including one that humanities evolution was fueled by cannibalism- specifically the eating of brains.
I could advance a theory which goes as follows-
'humanities evolution was set to advance in such a way that by the year 2000, humankind would have advanced to such a degree that all humans would have achieved individual mastery of their own minds and emotions; violence (for example) would have been a thing of the past.
Unfortunately, the widespread consumption of narcotic substances (including alcohol, cannabis, tobacco etc) throughout that evolution, hindered it to such an extent that humanity fell far short of its potential, and achieved only partial civilisation.'
It's just a theory, could be false, could be true- it's certainly as valid as any other unsubstantiated theory.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Dunc, I realise what point you're trying to make, but there's no way (imo) that it would work as you suggest. I've seen people who are very very close to me get addicted to and stay dependent on drugs, including legal ones, and they've all been properly educated about them, and they've all had people who care for them and tried to be understanding, and they've all had the offer to get detox and therapy and turned it down. None of them are happy with their situation, they just don't seem to be able to change it, and any way of stepping in and getting them to change something doesn't work either. I believe, just out of experience, that drugs have the addictive potential in them no matter how society regulates them.
Your idea is a bit like socialism, it works fine as long as everyone's acting responsibly, but most people don't have it in them to act responsibly with all drugs.
I probably disagree on you about what are direct effects... direct effects on others to me include sexual haressment by drunk people, drunk driving, neglecting friends/family/children, making others worry about you or making people scared of you, blowing smoke into people's faces, ruining your friends' night because they have to hold your head over the toilet bowl and escort you home to the other end of town etc. And if hard drugs were legal they'd still be expensive so there would still be people directly affected by those who need the money.
Dunc, I realise what point you're trying to make, but there's no way (imo) that it would work as you suggest. I've seen people who are very very close to me get addicted to and stay dependent on drugs, including legal ones, and they've all been properly educated about them, and they've all had people who care for them and tried to be understanding, and they've all had the offer to get detox and therapy and turned it down. None of them are happy with their situation, they just don't seem to be able to change it, and any way of stepping in and getting them to change something doesn't work either. I believe, just out of experience, that drugs have the addictive potential in them no matter how society regulates them.
Your idea is a bit like socialism, it works fine as long as everyone's acting responsibly, but most people don't have it in them to act responsibly with all drugs.
I probably disagree on you about what are direct effects... direct effects on others to me include sexual haressment by drunk people, drunk driving, neglecting friends/family/children, making others worry about you or making people scared of you, blowing smoke into people's faces, ruining your friends' night because they have to hold your head over the toilet bowl and escort you home to the other end of town etc. And if hard drugs were legal they'd still be expensive so there would still be people directly affected by those who need the money.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
re: the clean heroin thing Dave, I've tried searching the web but can't find anything. The info I got was from a program on TV a couple years ago about drug use and it's legslation from the end of the 1800's to the first half of the 1900's (from opium to hemp and beyond). Very interesting watching too as it was a very unbiased program....which made for a very nice change. Also from reading various books I never owned, although the first part of Storming Heaven by Jay Stevens is very interesting reading.
The impurites are from lack of proper refinement, just like how moonshine can kills you or turn you blind as apposed to Whiskey that's been properly and legally distilled if that analagy will help the understanding.
Direct affects.....you list lots of personality disorders that are multiplied by substance abuse, I didn't think of that. Good point. But maybe those problems should be addressed before taking the substance?
Yes you're right Birgit, my idea is a bit like socialism. I suppose I expect everyone to have read up on what they take before they take it like I have.
As for overdoing it and effecting your friends, I think that also the responsibility of your friends who are out drinking with you. Many a time I've stopped mates drinking that "one to many" for the avoid situations like that.
Also I said about Aldus' theories, one thing he practiced was to have a soba person with you during your experience as a guide and an aid, not purely for LSD and other high strengthers but for all 'trips' in the sub concsious.
And the last off topicness of it all
My opinions are mostly from personal experience as I've also seen the devastation of heavy drug abuse, in my family I'm the only child of three who isn't a heroin addict 
It's a hard, difficult thing to live with in the family, you try and try but no help can muster enough support. But I don't blame the drug, I blame those who mis-use them and force others to do the same with dirty drugs mostly in the name of profit.
Sorry Dave! We can carry on in PM if you like Birgit? I like the way you discuss instead of argue
sooooooo
being back in topic......
No I don't, if, for example, I wanna smoke myself into my early grave then who is anyone to tell me I can't do it? My life, my death, my choice. It's a shame for my family & loved ones but it's still my choice so long as I'm aware of all the factors. If I've been mislead into thinking it safe by some corporation/other person/government then perhaps the responsibility should lye with them, but i think to blame a piece of (or lack of) legislation as a contributing factor to the problem is to only look reactivly and trying to solve symptoms of the problem not to proactively at the reasoning behind it all in the first place.
re: the clean heroin thing Dave, I've tried searching the web but can't find anything. The info I got was from a program on TV a couple years ago about drug use and it's legslation from the end of the 1800's to the first half of the 1900's (from opium to hemp and beyond). Very interesting watching too as it was a very unbiased program....which made for a very nice change. Also from reading various books I never owned, although the first part of Storming Heaven by Jay Stevens is very interesting reading.
The impurites are from lack of proper refinement, just like how moonshine can kills you or turn you blind as apposed to Whiskey that's been properly and legally distilled if that analagy will help the understanding.
Direct affects.....you list lots of personality disorders that are multiplied by substance abuse, I didn't think of that. Good point. But maybe those problems should be addressed before taking the substance?
Yes you're right Birgit, my idea is a bit like socialism. I suppose I expect everyone to have read up on what they take before they take it like I have.
As for overdoing it and effecting your friends, I think that also the responsibility of your friends who are out drinking with you. Many a time I've stopped mates drinking that "one to many" for the avoid situations like that.
Also I said about Aldus' theories, one thing he practiced was to have a soba person with you during your experience as a guide and an aid, not purely for LSD and other high strengthers but for all 'trips' in the sub concsious.
And the last off topicness of it all
My opinions are mostly from personal experience as I've also seen the devastation of heavy drug abuse, in my family I'm the only child of three who isn't a heroin addict It's a hard, difficult thing to live with in the family, you try and try but no help can muster enough support. But I don't blame the drug, I blame those who mis-use them and force others to do the same with dirty drugs mostly in the name of profit. Sorry Dave! We can carry on in PM if you like Birgit? I like the way you discuss instead of argue sooooooo
being back in topic......
Written by: Dave
Just to put a different slant on this; is it not possible that a contributing factor to the devastation caused by the legal drugs, is precisely the fact that they are legal, and thus easily obtainable and usable in public?
No I don't, if, for example, I wanna smoke myself into my early grave then who is anyone to tell me I can't do it? My life, my death, my choice. It's a shame for my family & loved ones but it's still my choice so long as I'm aware of all the factors. If I've been mislead into thinking it safe by some corporation/other person/government then perhaps the responsibility should lye with them, but i think to blame a piece of (or lack of) legislation as a contributing factor to the problem is to only look reactivly and trying to solve symptoms of the problem not to proactively at the reasoning behind it all in the first place.
Let's relight this forum
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'd guess that of all the billions of human beings throughout history who have died as heroin addicts, alcoholics,of cancer caused by smoking etc; virtually none of them started their drug use with the conscious intent of smoking/drinking themselves into an early grave.
People simply do not take up drugs to harm themselves. I would say that a significant minority are fueled by a subconscious desire to kill or harm themselves; but not a conscious choice.
Instead they start off under the impression that the drugs do not harm , or that they will not get addicted, or even through not fully appreciating what drug caused harm is actually like.
To elaborate on that last point, an example is smokers who shrug off the consequences of smoking by saying 'it's five years off your life, so what? Lifes to be lived etc......'
Those of us who have seen friends/relatives perish through smoking related disease know that it's not like that- it's not just dying a few years early, it's a long drawn out, highly distressing (both for the victim and those who love him/her) process of hospitalisation, major surgery and increasing invalidity.
I've previously argued in this and other threads, that 'choosing' to use these substances is not 'choice' in the normal sense of the word- that 'drug use' and 'choice' are the antithesis of each other; ultimately, that those addicted users who are under the impression that they are, or ever did, exercise 'choice', are under a delusion.
The alcoholics, heroin addicts and nicotine addictsdid not, IMO, 'choose' their drug problem, they were victims.
And, given the age at which many of them started, this should come as no surprise.
I've previously put forward the proposition that those addicted drug users who place such value on their right to 'choose' (to use, and die from smoking, drinking etc), should maybe reflect on the rights of a group of people (society) to 'choose' to protect the next generation of future potential 'victims' of drug use; some of which may involve legislation.
Does that seem fair? If the right to choose is so paramount, then surely that extends to the right of society to choose how they want their world to be, and that set of choices may well overide the choices of some individuals.
It could be countered that it is not right to overide an individuals right to choose to use substances as long as it affects only that individual.
But it can be maintained that, once the future generations of potential victims is included in the equation, then controls and laws are justified, as, to not have those controls in place, does affect those future victims.
ie, giving some individuals the right to 'choose' to use harmful and addictive substances is not going to lead only to harm to those individuals, but also to the future generations of potentail victims.
(Please note here that I'm fully aware that many will insist that legislation and controls will not protect future generations- that's a different issue- what I'm arguing for here is that restrictions on individuals choices is justified if it will benefit future generations)
Written by: Dunc
No I don't, if, for example, I wanna smoke myself into my early grave then who is anyone to tell me I can't do it? My life, my death, my choice.
I'd guess that of all the billions of human beings throughout history who have died as heroin addicts, alcoholics,of cancer caused by smoking etc; virtually none of them started their drug use with the conscious intent of smoking/drinking themselves into an early grave.
People simply do not take up drugs to harm themselves. I would say that a significant minority are fueled by a subconscious desire to kill or harm themselves; but not a conscious choice.
Instead they start off under the impression that the drugs do not harm , or that they will not get addicted, or even through not fully appreciating what drug caused harm is actually like.
To elaborate on that last point, an example is smokers who shrug off the consequences of smoking by saying 'it's five years off your life, so what? Lifes to be lived etc......'
Those of us who have seen friends/relatives perish through smoking related disease know that it's not like that- it's not just dying a few years early, it's a long drawn out, highly distressing (both for the victim and those who love him/her) process of hospitalisation, major surgery and increasing invalidity.
I've previously argued in this and other threads, that 'choosing' to use these substances is not 'choice' in the normal sense of the word- that 'drug use' and 'choice' are the antithesis of each other; ultimately, that those addicted users who are under the impression that they are, or ever did, exercise 'choice', are under a delusion.
The alcoholics, heroin addicts and nicotine addictsdid not, IMO, 'choose' their drug problem, they were victims.
And, given the age at which many of them started, this should come as no surprise.
I've previously put forward the proposition that those addicted drug users who place such value on their right to 'choose' (to use, and die from smoking, drinking etc), should maybe reflect on the rights of a group of people (society) to 'choose' to protect the next generation of future potential 'victims' of drug use; some of which may involve legislation.
Does that seem fair? If the right to choose is so paramount, then surely that extends to the right of society to choose how they want their world to be, and that set of choices may well overide the choices of some individuals.
It could be countered that it is not right to overide an individuals right to choose to use substances as long as it affects only that individual.
But it can be maintained that, once the future generations of potential victims is included in the equation, then controls and laws are justified, as, to not have those controls in place, does affect those future victims.
ie, giving some individuals the right to 'choose' to use harmful and addictive substances is not going to lead only to harm to those individuals, but also to the future generations of potentail victims.
(Please note here that I'm fully aware that many will insist that legislation and controls will not protect future generations- that's a different issue- what I'm arguing for here is that restrictions on individuals choices is justified if it will benefit future generations)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
keep in mind that more people are alive today than have ever lived in all of combined human history... so it may very well be that bilions have not died in said fashion.
it is a pretty big statement to say one in five people (or more) who have ever lived has died of drug, alchohol, or tobacco abuse.
mind you it might not actually be wrong (I have no idea - and given that the vast majority of humans that have ever died have died in that 100 years it could actually be true...), just saying it is a pretty big statement...
< self for being pedantic yet again!>
keep in mind that more people are alive today than have ever lived in all of combined human history... so it may very well be that bilions have not died in said fashion.
it is a pretty big statement to say one in five people (or more) who have ever lived has died of drug, alchohol, or tobacco abuse.
mind you it might not actually be wrong (I have no idea - and given that the vast majority of humans that have ever died have died in that 100 years it could actually be true...), just saying it is a pretty big statement...
<
self for being pedantic yet again!> -v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
I disagree Dave. Legislation to restrict choice is not going to protect future generations in this case. Ill take this in two teirs...
First off, when someone choses to smoke or drink, Ill agree they dont usually think long term. They think "One time wont hurt" and that turns into more and more until they are addicted. OR they have self control and they don't become addicted but use it socially/responsibly. I know this is off topic, but this is the same issue with gun control. The thing is, when your addicted you can slowly ween yourself just like you slowly got addicted. One might argue that addiction is in our nature, and self-control / regulation is a higher order function that one develops as they mature... which of course would explain why use of drugs and alcohol goes down as one exits the early adulthood stage. This is the general idea behind age limits.
The thing is, we are trying to train people to "Just say no" instead of educating them and trying to make them responsible. Legislation making it criminal to possess them does not protect people from them: it just raises the price and difficulty of getting them. Economics will help here. Supply and demand. There WILL always be a demand, because in general I would argue that we are experience seeking. We seek out new and different experiences, and as such people will always want to try these substances to see what they really do. Good things CAN come from proper drug treatments (hallucinagens are great for minor mental issues if the proper guidance is used as well... of course not everyone is EDUCATED in these things...). There will always be a supply.
Now lets look at social contract theory, that is that all law is a social contract between the rulers and the ruled. We give up certain rights to maintain life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness or something similar, ie the right to kill someone for stealing your Eggo Waffle. Should we give up the right to our own bodies to protect us from ourselves? NO! That just sounds rediculously scary, and negates the "liberty" idea completely. Now as sad as it is that people who abuse sometimes "hurt" the people that care about them, the fact is that their loved ones are completely able to turn their back on them for using them. I know that seems cold, but its true.
What Im surprised about most here is no one has brought up China at all. Opium, shipped in from India and other places by Western influences, crippled their nation and some rediculous percentage of their population became addicted. It seems like the perfect poinant EXAMPLE of drug use on society for those of you who are anti-drug...
I disagree Dave. Legislation to restrict choice is not going to protect future generations in this case. Ill take this in two teirs...
First off, when someone choses to smoke or drink, Ill agree they dont usually think long term. They think "One time wont hurt" and that turns into more and more until they are addicted. OR they have self control and they don't become addicted but use it socially/responsibly. I know this is off topic, but this is the same issue with gun control. The thing is, when your addicted you can slowly ween yourself just like you slowly got addicted. One might argue that addiction is in our nature, and self-control / regulation is a higher order function that one develops as they mature... which of course would explain why use of drugs and alcohol goes down as one exits the early adulthood stage. This is the general idea behind age limits.
The thing is, we are trying to train people to "Just say no" instead of educating them and trying to make them responsible. Legislation making it criminal to possess them does not protect people from them: it just raises the price and difficulty of getting them. Economics will help here. Supply and demand. There WILL always be a demand, because in general I would argue that we are experience seeking. We seek out new and different experiences, and as such people will always want to try these substances to see what they really do. Good things CAN come from proper drug treatments (hallucinagens are great for minor mental issues if the proper guidance is used as well... of course not everyone is EDUCATED in these things...). There will always be a supply.
Now lets look at social contract theory, that is that all law is a social contract between the rulers and the ruled. We give up certain rights to maintain life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness or something similar, ie the right to kill someone for stealing your Eggo Waffle. Should we give up the right to our own bodies to protect us from ourselves? NO! That just sounds rediculously scary, and negates the "liberty" idea completely. Now as sad as it is that people who abuse sometimes "hurt" the people that care about them, the fact is that their loved ones are completely able to turn their back on them for using them. I know that seems cold, but its true.
What Im surprised about most here is no one has brought up China at all. Opium, shipped in from India and other places by Western influences, crippled their nation and some rediculous percentage of their population became addicted. It seems like the perfect poinant EXAMPLE of drug use on society for those of you who are anti-drug...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Again there's a huge presumption that legislating against drugs does not work, in your post.
Given that that question (does legislation work) is pretty much the central one of this whole thread (the first post of which put forward the proposition that part of the reason alcohol/tobacco cause more destruction than illegal drugs is precisely because they are legal);
and that virtually no-one who is saying 'legislation does not/can not work' has put forward any evidence for their viewpoint;
then, IMO it is presumption, and unsubstantiated.
So, I maintain, not that legislation definitly will protect future generations from the huge drug problems the present one has; but that no-ones yet posted any good reason that it will not do so.
And, if it does become established that legislation will protect future generations from those drug problems, then that is grounds for justifying such legisalation.
There's not a single piece of legislation that does not impinge on someones choice, whether it's the choice to murder others, the choice to have sexual intercourse with underage teens, or the choice to drive your car at 150 mph in a built up area...etc, etc..
When it comes to cases like that, we simply don't care that the choice of an individual is restricted; why should we feel differently about drugs?
(Acknowledging of course that one reason put forward is that drug legislation is ineffective, yet remembering that this is why I put 'if' in the sentence above).
I'm not saying that legislation would be effective; rather I'm saying-
1. There's been no convincing arguments to show it can't be
2. If it is effective, then it's justified, even though it limits the choice of some individuals.
Again there's a huge presumption that legislating against drugs does not work, in your post.
Given that that question (does legislation work) is pretty much the central one of this whole thread (the first post of which put forward the proposition that part of the reason alcohol/tobacco cause more destruction than illegal drugs is precisely because they are legal);
and that virtually no-one who is saying 'legislation does not/can not work' has put forward any evidence for their viewpoint;
then, IMO it is presumption, and unsubstantiated.
So, I maintain, not that legislation definitly will protect future generations from the huge drug problems the present one has; but that no-ones yet posted any good reason that it will not do so.
And, if it does become established that legislation will protect future generations from those drug problems, then that is grounds for justifying such legisalation.
There's not a single piece of legislation that does not impinge on someones choice, whether it's the choice to murder others, the choice to have sexual intercourse with underage teens, or the choice to drive your car at 150 mph in a built up area...etc, etc..
When it comes to cases like that, we simply don't care that the choice of an individual is restricted; why should we feel differently about drugs?
(Acknowledging of course that one reason put forward is that drug legislation is ineffective, yet remembering that this is why I put 'if' in the sentence above).
I'm not saying that legislation would be effective; rather I'm saying-
1. There's been no convincing arguments to show it can't be
2. If it is effective, then it's justified, even though it limits the choice of some individuals.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com