I thought maybe we could talk about something other than religion in this forum, for once 
. Here is the idea behind Responsible Drug Use (in a nutshell):
| http://wikipedia.org wrote: |
| The concept of responsible drug use is that a person can (for recreational, creative, spiritual, or entheogenic purposes) use a drug without it interfering in other parts of one's life and with a reduced risk of immediate danger to oneself or others. Advocates point to the many well-known artists and intellectuals who have used drugs, experimentally and otherwise, with few detrimental effects on their lives. |
I came across this the other day, and thought it was interesting. Is it really possible to use illicit drugs responsibly? Is it not irresponsible to use drugs in the first place? For the most part, when you are under the influence of drugs, you are not under control of your own actions. You are in what is known as an 'altered state of mind', where usually you have lowered inhibitions. Would this not lead to commiting irresponsible acts? Can you really ensure that you won't commit irresponsible acts?
More information can be found here, along with the responsible drug user's oath.
Your thoughts or opinions on this?
(Note: I consider this to be a type of philosophy or outlook on life, which is why I posted this in the philosophy/religion forum, and not general discussion) Now, here's an interesting topic.
Indeed, one can claim to be aware of the effects of a substance, and thus be a 'responsible user'. But 'altered states of mind' are an issue - that's why alcohol was banned from many occupations in the first place.
On the other hand, the subject seems to come into the individual freedoms' arena: if I decide to remove myself from society, and eventually consume certain substances - with full awareness of possible negative effects - the responsibility lies solely with me.
Well, since I'm not planning to remove myself from society any time soon, I believe in playing by its rules: substances which lead to serious clashes with other individuals should be controlled. The degree and type of control is yet another issue.
Drunken driving is indeed forbidden, but a few glasses in the pub around the corner are in order. If you smoke something other than tobacco, it might be best you stay at home - I suppose it is alright. On the other hand, the experience in the Netherlands appears to show that legalising 'light' drugs led to a higher use of 'harder' stuff. Drugs which promote serious dependency can bring complex social issues, since the consumers tend to follow a rather destructive pattern.
Now, just last month there was a very interesting report on BBC on a related issue - medical/research use of certain substances. Heroine and morphine compounds are already prescribed to terminal patients, albeit seldom. LSD did have some success cases, in the midst of all that hype. Indeed, certain banned drugs could have important medicinal application, so they say. Here, I find that the use is not unlike other medicinalia - take depression, for example. Certain drugs used to treat it have been associated with positively deranged acts of their takers.
Obviously even if drugs are legalized, it should still be illegal to do things under the influence of them that require clear judgement, such as driving a car or operating machinery. The thing with using any mind altering substance or technique - not just "illegal" drugs - is that if you are aware that your judgement and/or behaviour will be affected, it is your responsibility to ensure that you won't allow yourself be in a situation where you could commit an "irresponsible act".
Or to put it in plain English with an example, consider alcohol and driving. If you're planning to drink, it is your responsibility beforehand to ensure that you won't be put in a situation where you will have to drive. Before you start drinking, you must find a designated driver and/or ensure you have some alternate means home. Not while drinking, before.
The same logic applies to all mind-altering situations - before indulging in them, before your state of mind can be affected, you must take steps to ensure that you won't commit irresponsible acts. Of course, one of those steps includes limiting your intake or whatever to ensure that you don't lose control to the point that you circumvent your own precautions - or in plain English, you are also responsible for making sure you don't drink so much that you carjack someone and go for a joyride.
So it doesn't really matter how whatever you're doing affects your judgement. Being responsible means that you have considered that before you start indulging. So, yes, it is possible to use mind-altering substances and techniques responsibly.
As for the "gateway drug theory", that has never had any real scientific support, and is, at any rate, biologically nonsensical.
as far as my own personal drug use, in a responsible fashion, i will often smoke herb while i paint, it increases color sensitivity making color vibrations stronger and easier to pick apart. if i am planning on doing extended periods of art and know i might drink abit, i will sometimes chew a couple small stalks (approx: 0.3-0.5 grams) and my endurance will skyrocket.
im not saying this is for everyone, but i am saying that i have had a large history of experimentation with drugs, and consider myself a responsible drug user based on my experience.
and i think thats where it sits. to be a responsible drug user, you have to be experienced. what a catch 22.
Drugs are a way to escape from current bad, embarrassing, difficult situation ones' leave. In addition, taking it is a result of knowing people taking or buying it, they convince each other of it's efficiency!
| moniker wrote: |
| and i think thats where it sits. to be a responsible drug user, you have to be experienced. what a catch 22. |
Agreed.I think the legendary Robert Nester Marley (Bob Marley) was a responsible drug abuser?Who else thinks the same??
Unless someone knew him personally, it would probably be hard to tell.
Then again, judging from the fact that I've never heard of him doing anything stupid... He could be classified as a responsible user.
| Marston wrote: |
| moniker wrote: | | and i think thats where it sits. to be a responsible drug user, you have to be experienced. what a catch 22. |
Agreed. |
Disagree. You need experience to drive a car safely, right? So in the US we have drivers ed and the learners permit. You drive with someone who IS experienced. The same can be true of drug use. Back in the day, with every new class of drug I tried, there was always a bud there who had done it before. We watched out for each other all the time.
I would be hesitant to say that what we did was 'responsible'
, but we did try to enjoy ourselves without harming ourselves or others.Whether the use of mind-altering substances should be legalized can be a thorny issue precisely because of the harmful consequences irresponsible use can inflict upon third parties. Many (especially in today's society) would presume to ban all use of mind-altering substances so as to prevent people from even having the opportunity to act irresponsibly. Others favor leaving such things to the responsibility of each individual, and having the criminal justice system punish those who act irresponsibly (the model here in the US is alcohol).
One interesting side issue, which I'll bring up, is what priveleges should employers and/or others have in relation to recreational drug users? Assume here that we are talking about people who do in fact take drugs responsibly (say, in moderation), and don't do foolish things like drive cars under the influence. Should an employer be permitted to discriminate against employees solely on the basis of their consumption of drugs, even where they have no actual deletirious effects upon the employee's work performance?
My initial thoughts on this subject is that if we as a society would allow individuals to consume drugs legally, it is only fair that employers have the right to discriminate against them as they see fit (whether through screening during hiring or including a provision in the employment contract that drug use is grounds for dismissal). Especially in today's world, where employer's are liable for so much of an employees conduct, this seems to be fair.
| robsblawg wrote: |
| ... if we as a society would allow individuals to consume drugs legally, it is only fair that employers have the right to discriminate against them as they see fit (whether through screening during hiring or including a provision in the employment contract that drug use is grounds for dismissal). Especially in today's world, where employer's are liable for so much of an employees conduct, this seems to be fair. |
Fair? I don't see that at all. Should an employer fire someone because they drink alcohol when they are off the job? Pretty much the same idea, isn't it?
But what in the world does fair have to do with hiring practices? Even now you have companies that will fire you for any use of tobacco on or off the job. Fair doesn't enter into. | HoboPelican wrote: |
Fair? I don't see that at all. Should an employer fire someone because they drink alcohol when they are off the job? Pretty much the same idea, isn't it? |
I would defend an employer's right to make employment conditional, including requiring their employees to abstain from the consumption of alcohol or drugs. In my opinion that is part and parcel of the freedom of association. Of course, were I an employer I would not require absolute abstention from alcohol, because I think one can drink in moderation without it affecting one's personal life.
I think drugs are somewhat different however, and employers are justified in viewing someone who consumes "drugs" (marijuana, methamphetamines, LSD) differently than someone who drinks alcohol. I guess this actually goes to the heart of this thread, whether or not drugs can be used responsibly without negatively affecting a person's life.
In the majority of cases, I don't think this is possible. Some people are capable of the discipline required to use drugs recreationally, but I don't think this is true in general of most people. Partly this is because the type of people who gravitate towards drug use are the more lazy and indolent in any society. More to the point I think the difficulty is inherent in drugs as such. Unlike alcohol, which can be consumed gradually, drugs have a much more "on/off" type of effect. For example, one can have "a beer" without impairing one's consciousness very much (in fact, many people are unaffected by one drink). But smoking marijuana, taking LSD or snorting cocaine generally affect one immediately, and the state of being "high" is almost a seemless transition from one's unimpaired, natural state.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
But what in the world does fair have to do with hiring practices? Even now you have companies that will fire you for any use of tobacco on or off the job. Fair doesn't enter into. |
Fair enters into it in a ethical sense, whether or not the policy is right. I think it is fair for an employer to discriminate against a potential employee based upon their consumption of drugs, but not on the basis of their race (which really has nothing to do with their job performance). [/i] | robsblawg wrote: |
| HoboPelican wrote: |
Fair? I don't see that at all. Should an employer fire someone because they drink alcohol when they are off the job? Pretty much the same idea, isn't it? |
...I would not require absolute abstention from alcohol, because I think one can drink in moderation without it affecting one's personal life.
I think drugs are somewhat different however, and employers are justified in viewing someone who consumes "drugs" differently than someone who drinks alcohol. I guess this actually goes to the heart of this thread, whether or not drugs can be used responsibly without negatively affecting a person's life.
In the majority of cases, I don't think this is possible. Some people are capable of the discipline required to use drugs recreationally, but I don't think this is true in general of most people. Partly this is because the type of people who gravitate towards drug use are the more lazy and indolent in any society. More to the point I think the difficulty is inherent in drugs as such. Unlike alcohol, which can be consumed gradually, drugs have a much more "on/off" type of effect. |
I think you are way of base and I have to disagree. Sticking with Marijuana use, I see no difference, and I speak from experience, between it and alcohol. You are completely incorrect about it being more on/off than alcohol. Either one is very controllable. As to the "type of people"
you imagine using it, while I don't accept your feeling, remember that it is currently illegal and that is going to slant who is using it. While I and others used it when younger, we stopped using because it was illegal and could affect our jobs. If it was legal, you would see more people, who you would consider upstanding, using it.
| Quote: |
| HoboPelican wrote: |
But what in the world does fair have to do with hiring practices? Even now you have companies that will fire you for any use of tobacco on or off the job. Fair doesn't enter into. |
Fair enters into it in a ethical sense, whether or not the policy is right. I think it is fair for an employer to discriminate against a potential employee based upon their consumption of drugs, but not on the basis of their race (which really has nothing to do with their job performance). [/i] |
Neither does the use of tobacco affect job performance. But companies are firing people who use it of the job. And again, in the case of Marijuana, I still hold that it is no different alcohol use. I think I could make a case for other drugs, but marijauna is the easist place to start with. | robsblawg wrote: |
| I would defend an employer's right to make employment conditional, including requiring their employees to abstain from the consumption of alcohol or drugs. In my opinion that is part and parcel of the freedom of association. |
Oh, reeeeeaaaaaaaalllllllllllly???? Interesting. Well. Let's consider that. So, according to you, anything that an employee does that affects their personality and judgement - even on a temporary basis - can be used as a basis for discrimination? Hm....
(Time for some fun. ^_^)
Well, let's analyse some things that can affect personality and judgement, even just temporarily. Drugs, yes, we covered them. Alcohol, too.
Chocolate? Uh oh, chocolate can make you happy (that actually has a biochemical basis). That means that employers should be able to fire you if you eat chocolate.
Sugar? Yikes. Too much sugar makes you hyper. Add people with a sweet tooth to the list.
Coffee? Oh dear. Coffee drinkers can go, too.
Sex? Well, during climax you pretty much lose control. So, employers can fire anyone that has sex regularly. Not a problem for most of us on the Internet, but nevertheless.
Staying up late? Being tired can affect your judgement, obviously, so I guess anyone who does not have a regular sleep schedule can be fired on a whim.
Wow. So... essentially, by opening the door to employer discrimination against employees who perform acts that may temporarily affect their judgement outside of the workplace, you've opened the door to employers being able to essentially fire anyone they want, anytime they want, with only minimal justification. Sound like a world you want to work in?
| robsblawg wrote: |
| Of course, were I an employer I would not require absolute abstention from alcohol, because I think one can drink in moderation without it affecting one's personal life. |
Interesting. And ironic. Because alcohol is more poisonous, and more addictive than many "illegal" drugs, and furthermore produces more extreme variations in behaviour.
So what metric do you use to determine that alcohol is "safe" and marijuana (for example) is not?
| robsblawg wrote: |
| I think drugs are somewhat different however, and employers are justified in viewing someone who consumes "drugs" (marijuana, methamphetamines, LSD) differently than someone who drinks alcohol. |
Yes, but... why?
| robsblawg wrote: |
| In the majority of cases, I don't think this is possible. Some people are capable of the discipline required to use drugs recreationally, but I don't think this is true in general of most people. Partly this is because the type of people who gravitate towards drug use are the more lazy and indolent in any society. More to the point I think the difficulty is inherent in drugs as such. Unlike alcohol, which can be consumed gradually, drugs have a much more "on/off" type of effect. For example, one can have "a beer" without impairing one's consciousness very much (in fact, many people are unaffected by one drink). But smoking marijuana, taking LSD or snorting cocaine generally affect one immediately, and the state of being "high" is almost a seemless transition from one's unimpaired, natural state. |
Provide evidence to back these claims up. They sound rather like baseless opinions. (And, I happen to know many of them are wrong, but let's see your evidence.)
| robsblawg wrote: |
| HoboPelican wrote: |
But what in the world does fair have to do with hiring practices? Even now you have companies that will fire you for any use of tobacco on or off the job. Fair doesn't enter into. |
Fair enters into it in a ethical sense, whether or not the policy is right. I think it is fair for an employer to discriminate against a potential employee based upon their consumption of drugs, but not on the basis of their race (which really has nothing to do with their job performance). [/i] |
What about religion? Religion can affect job performance. Sex? Sex can affect job performance. Physical disabilities? The people they hang around with? Their political affiliations?
You are advocating discrimination, whether you recognize it or not. | Quote: |
| Sex? Well, during climax you pretty much lose control. So, employers can fire anyone that has sex regularly. Not a problem for most of us on the Internet, but nevertheless. |
Indi, you crack me up! (and yes, I was literally laughing out loud when I read that!) | Indi wrote: |
| Sound like a world you want to work in? |
Yes, emphatically.
| Indi wrote: |
| Provide evidence to back these claims up. They sound rather like baseless opinions. (And, I happen to know many of them are wrong, but let's see your evidence.) |
My evidence is based on three things: Anecdotal evidence from third parties
My observations of other people, intoxicated and/or "high"
My own personal experience with each of these substances (with the exception of LSD)
I don't know whether that qualifies for you as "evidence" for what I wrote, but I'm happy to discuss the matter further. I'm also interested in what evidence you have that convinces you of the opposite.
One point I agree with is that alcohol (when consumed irresponsibly) does produce more extreme variations in behavior than say, pot, for example, which seems to always calm the person using it down (contrast that with alcohol, which oftentimes fuels and exacerbates the rage of someone drinking to excess).
What I was trying to get across is that the effects of alcohol could be measured on a continuum (e.g., No alcohol-->Warm, Fuzzy feeling-->Slightly intoxicated-->Impaired-->Drunk-->Way too much alcohol). Someone could consume one drink of alcohol without becoming impaired.
In contrast (and in my experience), one cannot get "a little" high. One crosses from the unimpaired state to "high" state seemlessly, without intermediary stages. Perhaps others have had different experiences, but in my experience there aren't gradations (although, I will concede that there are different gradations of being "high", but those are really different stages of being really messed up).
| Indi wrote: |
| You are advocating discrimination, whether you recognize it or not. |
Agreed, but as I alluded to in the post you're quoting, that is part and parcel of the freedom of association. Freedom includes the freedom not to associate with other people. That is what "employment at will" (which is the status of most employees today) means. Of course, whether or not it is in an employer's self-interest to use a given standard of conduct for their employees is a different question. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| I think you are way of base and I have to disagree. Sticking with Marijuana use, I see no difference, and I speak from experience, between it and alcohol. You are completely incorrect about it being more on/off than alcohol. Either one is very controllable. |
That's interesting, because I had the opposite experience - for me it was much more "on/off" with marijuana and much more gradated with alcohol. Perhaps this is due in part to the quality of the marijuana? Better product might affect one more dramatically than a lower quality type?
| Quote: |
| As to the "type of people" you imagine using it, while I don't accept your feeling, remember that it is currently illegal and that is going to slant who is using it. While I and others used it when younger, we stopped using because it was illegal and could affect our jobs. If it was legal, you would see more people, who you would consider upstanding, using it. |
That is a good point, and one I didn't consider. As to not sharing the feeling expressed, do you disagree that many lazy people are attracted to drugs? I think in great part the reason why is that since they are lazy, and unwilling to work hard to achieve their goals, they are attracted to drugs because it gives them enjoyable feelings with relatively little work involved - it's easier to get high and feel "good" than it is to work to achieve significant goals. Not everyone uses drugs for these reasons, but the lower eschelon in society certainly does. | robsblawg wrote: |
That's interesting, because I had the opposite experience - for me it was much more "on/off" with marijuana and much more gradated with alcohol. Perhaps this is due in part to the quality of the marijuana? Better product might affect one more dramatically than a lower quality type?
|
Interesting that you had that experience. I can't say that I believe that it is related to strength. My experiences varied from lousy homegrown, Michoacan, Acapulco Gold, hash, hash oil, opium, well, you get the idea. All of these types of drugs seemed to be quite predictable within a 'batch'.
A hit or two of good stuff had about the same effect as a shot of jack.
I'm sure others had different experiences. Going back to alcohol, I remember a good friend in college who was the nicest, most polite guy you an imagine. But honest to god, a couple of 3.2 beers and the guy became a raving lunatic. People do react differently to stimuli.
But I think key to the discussion is that the person would not be under the influence, alcohol or other drug, AT WORK. In fact, I think if you compared work efficiency after a night of dope with a night of alcohol, I'm pretty sure that a hangover would really hurt the alcohol imbiber.
| Quote: |
| ... As to not sharing the feeling expressed, do you disagree that many lazy people are attracted to drugs? |
Not sure. My experience was in college and it was wide spread amongst almost any group you could name. In my localized experiences, I'd say I didn't see a preponderance of lazy folks using. Real world today? Just guessing, but I'd think drug and alcohol use was about similar. And I have absolutely no data on this. I am completely out of the drug scene now.
| Quote: |
| Not everyone uses drugs for these reasons, but the lower eschelon in society certainly does. |
Do you really think, in this level of society you refer to, that alcohol use is less? Or do you see them using alcohol and drugs similarly?Using them responsibly is possible(look at alchohol for instance), atleast with most drugs. It's all about moderation and not getting yourself into situations that are dangerous to you or those around you(like driving cars, being around aggressive people, and having a sober sitter never hurts(especially if something DOES happen)). The exeptions would be "hard" and more specifically synthetic drugs which cause severe addiction, and can be very dangerous and dentromental to health(crack, heroin, ice(meth), extasy, etc.).
| HoboPelican wrote: |
Interesting that you had that experience. I can't say that I believe that it is related to strength. My experiences varied from lousy homegrown, Michoacan, Acapulco Gold, hash, hash oil, opium, well, you get the idea. All of these types of drugs seemed to be quite predictable within a 'batch'.
A hit or two of good stuff had about the same effect as a shot of jack.
I'm sure others had different experiences. Going back to alcohol, I remember a good friend in college who was the nicest, most polite guy you an imagine. But honest to god, a couple of 3.2 beers and the guy became a raving lunatic. People do react differently to stimuli.
|
Hmm...I suppose I'll have to consult more people before coming to a definite conclusion. I have to agree, though, that alcohol, when abused, has much more serious consequences, both short term and long term.
Interestingly though, when you brought up the "shot of jack", made me concretize my point more clearly. My father, for example, occasionally likes to drink a beer. He never drinks more than one, and in my 20 some odd years I've never seen nor heard of him getting drunk. He simply likes the flavor of beer, but has no desire to be intoxicated. This is the type of case I am thinking of on the one hand, of someone who isn't (for lack of a better word) "tainted" by the use of mind altering substances. In contrast, I'm thinking of the type of guy (modeled after someone I actually worked with) who literally drank himself to sleep every night, and couldn't remember what had transpired. Alcohol can be made such that one can choose where on that continuum one wants to go, from the occasional drink to the outright drunkard. In contrast, drugs don't (again, in my experience) provide the same level of control. With drugs, there seems to be a threshold (like three hits from a joint) at which point one becomes high. Until that point is reached, one is still unaffected by the drug. Is your experience (in this sense) similar HoboPelican?
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| But I think key to the discussion is that the person would not be under the influence, alcohol or other drug, AT WORK. In fact, I think if you compared work efficiency after a night of dope with a night of alcohol, I'm pretty sure that a hangover would really hurt the alcohol imbiber. |
I agree. I suppose my rationale then is that to a company, someone who habitually uses a drug is similar to someone who habitually gets drunk. Perhaps I'll have to except marijuana from the discussion though, as I happen to agree with you that it is less dangerous for the most part than alcohol. However, would you agree that someone who habitually uses LSD or cocaine, is more similar to the habitual drunkard, and much more of a liability to a company? (In part I premise this question on the fact that LSD and cocaine tend to have very serious long term consequences (both physically and mentally) on an individual.)
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| Do you really think, in this level of society you refer to, that alcohol use is less? Or do you see them using alcohol and drugs similarly? |
No, I agree it is similar, if not more widespread. But I would say that you see more widespread use of abuse of alcohol, as opposed to say the moderate consumption you'd see in "higher" eschelons. | robsblawg wrote: |
| .... With drugs, there seems to be a threshold (like three hits from a joint) at which point one becomes high. Until that point is reached, one is still unaffected by the drug. Is your experience (in this sense) similar HoboPelican?... |
As I said earlier, no. For me it seemed a very controlable continuum.
| Quote: |
| ... However, would you agree that someone who habitually uses LSD or cocaine, is more similar to the habitual drunkard, and much more of a liability to a company? (In part I premise this question on the fact that LSD and cocaine tend to have very serious long term consequences (both physically and mentally) on an individual.) |
Cocaine I have no personal experience with, so I won't comment on that. LSD is a different animal altogether. As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever even suggested it is addictive, so I don't see the similarity with an alcoholic. I'm not sure what "facts" of long term use you are referring to. Expand on your thoughts with references, if you would. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| robsblawg wrote: | | ... However, would you agree that someone who habitually uses LSD or cocaine, is more similar to the habitual drunkard, and much more of a liability to a company? (In part I premise this question on the fact that LSD and cocaine tend to have very serious long term consequences (both physically and mentally) on an individual.) |
Cocaine I have no personal experience with, so I won't comment on that. LSD is a different animal altogether. As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever even suggested it is addictive, so I don't see the similarity with an alcoholic. I'm not sure what "facts" of long term use you are referring to. Expand on your thoughts with references, if you would. |
Ahh....I wasn't implying anything regarding whether or not these substances were addictive, though that would fall into "long term consequences" (incidentally, I'm very skeptical of the concept of addiction, but that is probably best left for another thread). As for LSD, I think that is much more of a dangerous drug based upon the people I've known who have used it. All three of them reported bizarre and strange responses to the drug, which shook them for quite a while psychologically.
In the case of one of my former acquaintances, who took acid some 20 odd times, he literally changed as a person throughout the 3 month period in which he was taking acid. He acquired bizarre quirks (like nervous ticks, some hallucinations, etc.) which lasted for as long as I knew him (2 1/2 years, after which we disassociated). Let's just say that based upon my observations of these three people, I knew better than to ever touch LSD. I would be interested in hearing about any evidence you have on the effects of LSD though, whether it be anecdotal or personal. | robsblawg wrote: |
... (incidentally, I'm very skeptical of the concept of addiction, but that is probably best left for another thread). |
I agree on both points!
| Quote: |
| In the case of one of my former acquaintances, who took acid some 20 odd times, he literally changed as a person throughout the 3 month period in which he was taking acid. He acquired bizarre quirks (like nervous ticks, some hallucinations, etc.) which lasted for as long as I knew him (2 1/2 years, after which we disassociated). Let's just say that based upon my observations of these three people, I knew better than to ever touch LSD. I would be interested in hearing about any evidence you have on the effects of LSD though, whether it be anecdotal or personal. |
Hallucinogen use in my group was roughly once every other week for the 2 years I was innvolved. Blotter, microdot, orange barrels, mushrooms, peyote and a few synthetics. In that time I saw no evidence of any odd quirks (at least during 'straight' times). Most continued their studies and then graduated, 2 with honors. Long term effects I've experienced were restricted to very minor visual flashbacks for a few years. My classing them as minor is based on the fact that they happened infrequently and, when they did occur, it was obvious that they were hallucinations and were quite easy to ignore. Similar to how you deal with "floaters" in the eye. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Hallucinogen use in my group was roughly once every other week for the 2 years I was innvolved. Blotter, microdot, orange barrels, mushrooms, peyote and a few synthetics. In that time I saw no evidence of any odd quirks (at least during 'straight' times). Most continued their studies and then graduated, 2 with honors. Long term effects I've experienced were restricted to very minor visual flashbacks for a few years. My classing them as minor is based on the fact that they happened infrequently and, when they did occur, it was obvious that they were hallucinations and were quite easy to ignore. Similar to how you deal with "floaters" in the eye. |
Hmm...this has been an informative discussion HoboPelican. I think it's very interesting that we've both had such different experiences with drug use. It seems that who is using the drugs plays a significant role in the result they have. I'm definitely going to have to do some more research in this area before coming to a definitive conclusion. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Quote: | | Sex? Well, during climax you pretty much lose control. So, employers can fire anyone that has sex regularly. Not a problem for most of us on the Internet, but nevertheless. |
Indi, you crack me up! (and yes, I was literally laughing out loud when I read that!) |
^_^
| robsblawg wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Sound like a world you want to work in? |
Yes, emphatically. |
As long as you're one of the people who isn't being discriminated against, of course? To hell with those that are? Nice.
| robsblawg wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Provide evidence to back these claims up. They sound rather like baseless opinions. (And, I happen to know many of them are wrong, but let's see your evidence.) |
My evidence is based on three things: Anecdotal evidence from third parties My observations of other people, intoxicated and/or "high" My own personal experience with each of these substances (with the exception of LSD)
|
Ah, I see. Anecdotal evidence, uncontrolled observations and personal opinon. The unholy trinity of crock science. Nice.
| robsblawg wrote: |
| I don't know whether that qualifies for you as "evidence" for what I wrote, but I'm happy to discuss the matter further. I'm also interested in what evidence you have that convinces you of the opposite. |
Oh, you know, crazy stuff. Logntitudinal social studies, medical studies, the biochemistry of the chemical addictions, comparative statistics and case studies of countries with different laws about what are legal and illegal drugs and the effects thereof.... Wacky stuff like that.
| robsblawg wrote: |
| One point I agree with is that alcohol (when consumed irresponsibly) does produce more extreme variations in behavior than say, pot, for example, which seems to always calm the person using it down (contrast that with alcohol, which oftentimes fuels and exacerbates the rage of someone drinking to excess). |
See, this is an example of where your "research methods" have led you astray. Alcohol does not "fuel" people or exacerbate rage. In fact, alcohol is a depressant. Furthermore, it is a poison, so it is actually slowing them down as it poisons them to death (which you can measure initially as decreased reaction time).
What you're seeing is because one of the first things alcohol suppresses is higher brain functions - for example, self-control. They're not enraged because they're drunk, they were enraged before and the alcohol suppressed the fine grained mental control that allows people to taper off that rage within their minds.
The reason alcohol produces more extreme behavioural variations than marijuana is because it is a much more dangerous drug. It does far more long-term damage to the body, and even in the short-term the effects are far more powerful. So why is alcohol ok and marijuana not?
| robsblawg wrote: |
What I was trying to get across is that the effects of alcohol could be measured on a continuum (e.g., No alcohol-->Warm, Fuzzy feeling-->Slightly intoxicated-->Impaired-->Drunk-->Way too much alcohol). Someone could consume one drink of alcohol without becoming impaired.
In contrast (and in my experience), one cannot get "a little" high. One crosses from the unimpaired state to "high" state seemlessly, without intermediary stages. Perhaps others have had different experiences, but in my experience there aren't gradations (although, I will concede that there are different gradations of being "high", but those are really different stages of being really messed up). |
The amount of bad science you used to come to these conclusions is depressing. I hardly know where to start.
First, let's discuss the idea that it's ok to drink a little alcohol and be relatively unaffected, but not marijuana. What's wrong with that theory?
Well for starters, it's flat wrong. Measurable affects can already be detected even after one drink of a typical alcoholic beverage. You may not be able to observe them just by watching the person, but the damage is already in progress after one drink.
Ok, so then why is it not possible to take one "toke" and not have observable effects? Beats me, because it is. Like alcohol, like all drugs, marijuana's effects increase with increasing dosage. It's not like: "I'm fine, I'm perfectly normal, everything is cool, I'm totally in control of myse- BAM I'm like so f-cked up right now, man, where are the Cheetos?"
So now the question is... why haven't you observed this? It seems to me that you have observed this somewhat - given that you have identified a spectrum of effect for marijuana - but have let you bias cloud your conclusion. But, let's ignore that for now and look for another answer. Let me ask you the question: have you ever seen anyone smoke up not for the express purpose of getting high? Have you ever seen anyone just take a casual recreational toke with friends with the understanding that they're just being social and don't intend to get high? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that every time you've observed someone smoking up, it was for the express and deliberate purpose of getting high. By contrast, it is common to have a drink of beer without intending to get drunk.
So, let's review. You've probably never observed a person who wasn't trying to get high while smoking up, although you have observed people who weren't trying to get drunk while drinking. And, surprise surprise, you have never observed a person who smoked up without getting high, although you have observed a person who drank without getting drunk. *gasp* Shocking results!
| robsblawg wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | You are advocating discrimination, whether you recognize it or not. |
Agreed, but as I alluded to in the post you're quoting, that is part and parcel of the freedom of association. Freedom includes the freedom not to associate with other people. That is what "employment at will" (which is the status of most employees today) means. Of course, whether or not it is in an employer's self-interest to use a given standard of conduct for their employees is a different question. |
Methinks you're seriously misinterpreting the idea of freedom of association. It's one thing to choose your friends socially, it's quite another to exclude an entire subpopulation from employment. By that reason, why should someone employ blacks if they don't like them? Hey, it's freedom of association! They don't have to! Hey, we don't want Jews in our workplace... well freedom of association means that we can put in our company charter "Jews need not apply". (Hm... I've seen that done somewhere before....)
Alright, fine, let's give an employer free reign to let the conduct of their employees outside of the workplace decide whether or not he considers them desirable. So we can't discriminate against blacks (gee, your policy is so inclusive and liberal!), just Jews, Muslims, gays... hell, pretty much anyone. Not a big believe in equality or multiculturalism, are we?I'll keep it real short. There is no such thing as responsible drug use.
| Code of Ruin wrote: |
| I'll keep it real short. There is no such thing as responsible drug use. |
I'll keep it short, also. That is an ignorant statement. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Code of Ruin wrote: | | I'll keep it real short. There is no such thing as responsible drug use. |
I'll keep it short, also. That is an ignorant statement. |
Why is this an ignorant statement if I may ask so? No matter what drug you use, there is a fair chance that it will damage you. Even softdrugs like hash can be harmfull as they can trigger mental disorders. Hard drugs like cocaine and crack destroy you completely. It is very hard to become clean again from those. I think it is per definition irresponsible to use drugs as they make you lose control of your actions. You may or may not agree with my view upon this matter but my statement really isn't ignorant.If doing things that we know are harmful to us is "irresponsible" then very few things are resonsible though? Just some basic things, apart from "drug" use (I don't like how "drugs" are all intoxicating substances except alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and tein, but that's a different story), such as buying stocks, jaywalking, driving a car would be irresponsible would they not? They all include risks known beforehand. Yet we make a risk-calculation and come to the conclusion that in this case, the benefits outweigh the risks.
But yes, doing something that I know for a fact will cause harm, to me or to others, would be irresponsible. I don't know for a fact that that's what will happen when I do drugs though. Uncontrolled abuse of drugs is bad, yes, but so is uncontrolled abuse of pretty much everything.
Is the shaman eating hallucinogenic mushrooms for religious purposes being irresponsible? Is the dervish dancing himself into a trance being irresponsible?
| Code of Ruin wrote: |
| Why is this an ignorant statement if I may ask so? No matter what drug you use, there is a fair chance that it will damage you. Even softdrugs like hash can be harmfull as they can trigger mental disorders. Hard drugs like cocaine and crack destroy you completely. It is very hard to become clean again from those. I think it is per definition irresponsible to use drugs as they make you lose control of your actions. You may or may not agree with my view upon this matter but my statement really isn't ignorant. |
Sure it is. Let's start with your first statement here. "a fair chance of damage"? do I even have to say that you offer NO numbers to back it up and ,more to the point, driving a car over the speed limit, , flying, eating resturrant food, etc have a "fair chance to do damage". At the low end of the drug spectrum there is no research that I have seen that points to any major problems. Show the link if you know of any.
Also, by your definition, responsible alcohol use is impossible also, since it makes you loose control.
But bascially, I call it ignorant because you jump in with a blanket statement stating a your feelings as fact while ignoring all the other posts, both for and against.Indi,
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have mistaken me for some troll who is here to simply pontificate, ignore any opposing points of view, and in general ruin what could be a wonderful discussion. I hope what follows will help convince you that I am here for honest discussion and debate, and not to lower the quality of the forum. Also, I apologize for the delay in my response. I'm extremely busy, working full time, taking summer school, and doing two other part-time jobs; a consequence is that posting only occurs when I have a spare minute.
| Indi wrote: |
| As long as you're one of the people who isn't being discriminated against, of course? To hell with those that are? Nice. |
I don't know what I said previously that would give you the impression that I'm inconsistent in my views, or believe in "discrimination against thee but not against me". I can assure you that my views here are consistent, and I emphatically support other people's right not to associate with me (whether socially or in an employer-employee context) as they see fit.
| Indi wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Provide evidence to back these claims up. They sound rather like baseless opinions. (And, I happen to know many of them are wrong, but let's see your evidence.) |
| robsblawg wrote: | My evidence is based on three things: Anecdotal evidence from third parties My observations of other people, intoxicated and/or "high" My own personal experience with each of these substances (with the exception of LSD)
|
| Indi wrote: | | Ah, I see. Anecdotal evidence, uncontrolled observations and personal opinon. The unholy trinity of crock science. Nice. |
|
I don't understand why you felt the need to characterize my observations as "uncontrolled" - as if I'm some drugged up hippy spouting out random observations. I don't have any agenda here, I'm working from my best understanding of reality. To do this I use the tools all of us have: perception (through our senses) and reason. No one has the time to become an expert in the voluminous statistical studies that are being churned out on every subject. That is one of the reasons why a forum such as this can be so valuable - each of us can contribute what we've studied from our field(s) of interest, and educate our fellow posters. Rather than attack me as some kind of charlatan, why not point out (or summarize) a study you're familiar with?
| Indi wrote: |
| robsblawg wrote: | | I don't know whether that qualifies for you as "evidence" for what I wrote, but I'm happy to discuss the matter further. I'm also interested in what evidence you have that convinces you of the opposite. |
Oh, you know, crazy stuff. Logntitudinal social studies, medical studies, the biochemistry of the chemical addictions, comparative statistics and case studies of countries with different laws about what are legal and illegal drugs and the effects thereof.... Wacky stuff like that. |
Again, why the sarcasm? If I had made posts that unequivocally demonstrated that I was a troll, then I would be worthy of such a response. But I think, judging from what I've posted just in this thread, that I've shown that I'm someone reasonable, who doesn't cling to dogmas when presented with contrary arguments. I'm participating because doing so increases my knowledge, not to prove a given point. Again, I think you would do a far better job making your point by referencing studies supporting your position, not ridiculing me as some type of bozo.
| Indi wrote: |
| robsblawg wrote: | | One point I agree with is that alcohol (when consumed irresponsibly) does produce more extreme variations in behavior than say, pot, for example, which seems to always calm the person using it down (contrast that with alcohol, which oftentimes fuels and exacerbates the rage of someone drinking to excess). |
See, this is an example of where your "research methods" have led you astray. Alcohol does not "fuel" people or exacerbate rage. In fact, alcohol is a depressant. Furthermore, it is a poison, so it is actually slowing them down as it poisons them to death (which you can measure initially as decreased reaction time).
What you're seeing is because one of the first things alcohol suppresses is higher brain functions - for example, self-control. They're not enraged because they're drunk, they were enraged before and the alcohol suppressed the fine grained mental control that allows people to taper off that rage within their minds.
The reason alcohol produces more extreme behavioural variations than marijuana is because it is a much more dangerous drug. It does far more long-term damage to the body, and even in the short-term the effects are far more powerful. So why is alcohol ok and marijuana not? |
First of all, I agree with you, it's arbitrary to outlaw marijuana and not alcohol, so it isn't ok. More to the point though, this part of your response is excellent. You provide facts and explanations, which (in some instances) were things I didn't know beforehand. I wasn't aware of precisely how alcohol interacted with our bodies, only that it interfered with people's ability to control themselves.
| Indi wrote: |
| robsblawg wrote: | What I was trying to get across is that the effects of alcohol could be measured on a continuum (e.g., No alcohol-->Warm, Fuzzy feeling-->Slightly intoxicated-->Impaired-->Drunk-->Way too much alcohol). Someone could consume one drink of alcohol without becoming impaired.
In contrast (and in my experience), one cannot get "a little" high. One crosses from the unimpaired state to "high" state seemlessly, without intermediary stages. Perhaps others have had different experiences, but in my experience there aren't gradations (although, I will concede that there are different gradations of being "high", but those are really different stages of being really messed up). |
The amount of bad science you used to come to these conclusions is depressing. I hardly know where to start.
First, let's discuss the idea that it's ok to drink a little alcohol and be relatively unaffected, but not marijuana. What's wrong with that theory?
Well for starters, it's flat wrong. Measurable affects can already be detected even after one drink of a typical alcoholic beverage. You may not be able to observe them just by watching the person, but the damage is already in progress after one drink.
Ok, so then why is it not possible to take one "toke" and not have observable effects? Beats me, because it is. Like alcohol, like all drugs, marijuana's effects increase with increasing dosage. It's not like: "I'm fine, I'm perfectly normal, everything is cool, I'm totally in control of myse- BAM I'm like so f-cked up right now, man, where are the Cheetos?"
So now the question is... why haven't you observed this? It seems to me that you have observed this somewhat - given that you have identified a spectrum of effect for marijuana - but have let you bias cloud your conclusion. But, let's ignore that for now and look for another answer. Let me ask you the question: have you ever seen anyone smoke up not for the express purpose of getting high? Have you ever seen anyone just take a casual recreational toke with friends with the understanding that they're just being social and don't intend to get high? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that every time you've observed someone smoking up, it was for the express and deliberate purpose of getting high. By contrast, it is common to have a drink of beer without intending to get drunk.
So, let's review. You've probably never observed a person who wasn't trying to get high while smoking up, although you have observed people who weren't trying to get drunk while drinking. And, surprise surprise, you have never observed a person who smoked up without getting high, although you have observed a person who drank without getting drunk. *gasp* Shocking results! |
This passage is mixed. You do provide arguments, which I appreciate, but again, I have to ask, why the negative undertones everywhere? If I could put an emotion to the whole passage it would be contempt, which my dictionary defines as, "The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn." Don't get me wrong, if you felt that way while reading what I've posted, you might be justified. But since you don't know me, and don't have a sufficient context to judge whether I'm sincere or just a troll, I think it's unfair to lace your response
with sarcasm and contempt so openly. Furthermore, I think it hampers the discussion, where the same effort could have progressed it.
| Indi wrote: |
| robsblawg wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | You are advocating discrimination, whether you recognize it or not. |
Agreed, but as I alluded to in the post you're quoting, that is part and parcel of the freedom of association. Freedom includes the freedom not to associate with other people. That is what "employment at will" (which is the status of most employees today) means. Of course, whether or not it is in an employer's self-interest to use a given standard of conduct for their employees is a different question. |
Methinks you're seriously misinterpreting the idea of freedom of association. It's one thing to choose your friends socially, it's quite another to exclude an entire subpopulation from employment. By that reason, why should someone employ blacks if they don't like them? Hey, it's freedom of association! They don't have to! Hey, we don't want Jews in our workplace... well freedom of association means that we can put in our company charter "Jews need not apply". (Hm... I've seen that done somewhere before....)
Alright, fine, let's give an employer free reign to let the conduct of their employees outside of the workplace decide whether or not he considers them desirable. So we can't discriminate against blacks (gee, your policy is so inclusive and liberal!), just Jews, Muslims, gays... hell, pretty much anyone. Not a big believe in equality or multiculturalism, are we? |
These are fair arguments, and I'd be happy to take them up with you in a separate thread.
Again, I hope I've demonstrated by the length and depth of this response that I'm here to engage in serious intellectual discussions.
