Anti-drug-college-students

[s.ketch]

Maybe I wasn't clear. Medical studies about drugs != pro-drug literature, in my opinion.

What I meant was psychedelic mysticism. The idea that taking drugs leads you to a higher level of understanding that what is available. Also the results of psychedelic visions as prophecy, natural explanation, supernatural evidence. Stuff like Timewave Zero. Those things are not science. I wasn't saying anything about medical experiments.

The politics surrounding drug use are just that--politics. Though it comes off as the pro-drug people implying that having a political position of legalization and decriminalization is a scientific stance. It's a matter of law and politics. Science is used and abused to support the political decisions. I think points on both sides proves this argument is more about values, politics, and law than science.

The medical studies are indeed easy to find with a few minutes of googling. The reason I haven't engaged anyone on that matter is because it then becomes about who can find the most links supporting their point. Nobody here is writing a scholarly article and I don't expect the points made here to hold up to that much scrutiny. I'm sure people who are incredibly passionate about the subject have plenty of bookmarks at the ready to fire off. I simply don't have the time to take on every single link that upwards of four people can throw at me. And honestly, I'm not that passionate about the subject. I think it's silly to sit around rattling off factoids about our favorite drugs and congratulating each other on how educated we are for reading erowid. Or talking about Switzerland (which I called). That's quite boring actually, from a thinking standpoint. If you want to take that as a cop-out, go ahead. Everyone can go post art (I hear it's really great).

I originally posted because the idea was to ignore any social consequences of drug use, and focus on the fact that some people use it responsibly. Which seems like an odd way to look at it. And thus began the claims of scientific superiority and crying about post counts. But the real point is that if you cannot impose responsible drug use, then it does no good to suggest responsible use. So it's a bad idea to praise it in front of people who may get the wrong impression and do drugs because their favorite art site says so.

I do want to thank Jake for being civil even when I was being antagonistic. I don't have a problem with him. Kev makes good points all day, I wish people would open their minds a bit to consider them.

[Oden]

Okay.

I was responding to this, where you said:

In case you don't realize it, you're reducing my arguments to personal bias. That I'm arguing against you because of a petty personal preference as opposed to a real argument of value and fact. Maybe it's an unconscious assumption.

LSD increases dopamine production and uptake in the brain. Brain activity under the influence of LSD closely resembles Schizophrenia. Forgive me if I don't take something that produces a schizoid event. Forgive me if I trust science over some guy on the internet who did LSD once so he truly knows what it's like. Being under the influence of drugs is being as biased as possible. How can you make an informed decisions about anything in such a condition? This mysticism surrounding drug use is problematic. So no, it's not that I don't like it. It's the chemical and biological consequences of ingesting it.

I was just trying to address your desire to have a discussion based on 'value and fact', which takes into account the 'chemical and biological consequences of ingesting it.' I wasn't trying to make an argument so much as actually provide you with some interesting papers to read that are good examples of level-headed approaches to the topic of the use and applications of psychedelics.

It just seems a bit unfair to appeal to an argument based on facts and science, and then retreat from that position when facts and science are presented, even in a fairly non-partisan form.

[s.ketch]

In that same quote, just before the line you bolded, what does it say? "This mysticism surrounding drug use is problematic."

The part you put in bold is my personal reasoning for why I don't ingest LSD. It was in response to the implication that I don't like LSD for the heck of it. Which my personal reasons for doing or not doing drugs is a different matter all together. And it is a fact that LSD mocks Schizophrenia via dopamine production/uptake. When it comes to LSD use, I will trust the doctors over erowid or the like. That's the fact part.

The value part was the judgement of drug use. Is doing drugs a waste of time? How cool does it actually make a person? Is it really beneficial to art? Is it ethical to suggest drug use to strangers?

[Velocity Kendall]

Originally Posted by Velocity Kendoll
I can only think of clever quips two days later edited by Velocity Kendoll, reason: get it? Ken doll lel
It's locking time.

ha ha?

[Star Eater]

Yeah, I did not quite get that myself...?

[Velocity Kendall]

i have trouble understanding a lot of what he says to be fair

And honestly, I'm not that passionate about the subject. I think it's silly to sit around rattling off factoids about our favorite drugs and congratulating each other on how educated we are for reading erowid. Or talking about Switzerland (which I called). That's quite boring actually, from a thinking standpoint. If you want to take that as a cop-out, go ahead. Everyone can go post art (I hear it's really great).

huh?

speaking of ken dolls,
check out my crib

[Thoolhoo]

Oh looks like people are sharing drug stories. Let me jump on to that vagon.

Mate came up from London, brough some quality Amnesia weed. It was too strong for us (i.e. lying on the floor thinking, "G!") so we mixed it with some Lemon Haze I found somewhere. Smoothest and strongest high ever. Just sitting around talking shit, as you do. Then I get the bright idea to put on Adventure Time. Holy crap, I did not expect what that cartoon did to me. The sickly over saturated bright colours, the absolutely insane characters, weird voices. There was that episode with the shrieking Lemon guy and his voice stayed with me for days after. Or the clown episode where you get an obese, bloated clown nurse face laughing maniacally and repeating "This is the ONLY way", with a bright red rotating background. Then we saw the episode with the tiny cute things that sneak around the protagonists' house pretending to be their dead mother. Fuck this shit, I thought, what the hell am I watching?! I was so on edge, completely consumed by this insane world, that I screamed out loud when my frend knocked over a glass. But once the initial wave of paranoia wore off I started to find this amusing. It was still completely insane, double meaning everywhere, sinister undertones, but I enjoyed it. The implications of finding memories inside memories inside memories inside memories inside memo... you get the point; just blew my mind.

Next morning I watched Adventure Time again. It was a benign children's cartoon with funny bits of pastry screaming random weird shit. Nothing sinister or mind blowing.

Go figure

PS: Didn't particularly like salvia. It just gave me mad giggles and then strange dreams. I was in a desert world, burning under two suns. I was dying of thirst and heat. When they finally set an enormous star rose from the horizon obliterating everything apart from me. I was standing in the middle of this burning world thinking, "Boy, that monkey looks weird".

[Qitsune]

Oh looks like people are sharing drug stories. Let me jump on to that vagon.

I don't like weed, and I guess it explains why I don't care for Adventure Time. I never got why some people were so crazy about it. Do you think I'd need weed to get why some people are so crazy about My Little Pony?

[Thoolhoo]

Do you think I'd need weed to get why some people are so crazy about My Little Pony?

No amount of drugs will give us an insight into that mystery of our universe.

[Velocity Kendall]

one aspect of LSD that is a lot more interesting than the wierd colours walls are melting thing is that its like shining a search light on your mind, so if there is a repressed worry bugging you, you will be forced to stare right at it, and cant sweep it under the rug as is easy when youre sober.
this is a lot like therapy, and can be a painful but ultimately cathartic experience; you come out of the trip knowing exactly whats wrong, which is a much easier problem to solve than being troubled by some vague ennuii.
my point is that LSD might not tell you anything much useful about the universe, but it can be a very powerful way of learning about yourself.

[kev ferrara]

Introspection is what sensitive people do. Has nothing to do with drug-taking.

Clarity about life and one's self and the mysterious reactive behaviors of everyone you meet is hard won, and nobody reading this should think there are short cuts to leading an examined life.

[Velocity Kendall]

why then do medicine men and shamans and writers down history revere psychoactive drugs for the insight they help provide?

[kev ferrara]

.......

[Velocity Kendall]

hahaha! oh goodness me, a racist cartoon! youve outdone yourself kev! Why I declare it to be the most whimsical jape of the season!

Are you drunk? Millions of people still die from preventable illnesses every year, many of them caused by drinking.

[Quixotica]

I do not understand how this issue is so complicated. There's no legislation preventing me from going out and finding some belladonna to eat. Nor fugu, which is risky, yet accepted and expensive. Why does the .gov need to tell me what I can poison myself with?

[Quixotica]

one aspect of LSD that is a lot more interesting than the wierd colours walls are melting thing is that its like shining a search light on your mind, so if there is a repressed worry bugging you, you will be forced to stare right at it, and cant sweep it under the rug as is easy when youre sober.
this is a lot like therapy, and can be a painful but ultimately cathartic experience; you come out of the trip knowing exactly whats wrong, which is a much easier problem to solve than being troubled by some vague ennuii.
my point is that LSD might not tell you anything much useful about the universe, but it can be a very powerful way of learning about yourself.

Introspection is what sensitive people do. Has nothing to do with drug-taking.

Clarity about life and one's self and the mysterious reactive behaviors of everyone you meet is hard won, and nobody reading this should think there are short cuts to leading an examined life.

True dat, but VC is right. if there is a niggle in your mind, you become immediately aware of it, and it becomes obvious how damaging and un-fun it is to repress it..

[bill618]

why then do medicine men and shamans and writers down history revere psychoactive drugs for the insight they help provide?

Nagual, medicine men, Shamans, witchdoctors…spooked by hallucenagenic plants.

When you ain’t got Science, you got Animisim.
At least that’s what the great cumulonimbus cloud god told me in a dream a few hours ago.

I like the line (at end of clip) from the movie Young Guns when the motley band of outlaws, ‘insightfully’ mind ‘expanded’ on peyote (in other words--stoned), passes through an Indian camp, when one of them says "Hey Chavis, How come they aint killin’ us? [reply] We're in the spiritworld asshole, they can't see us. "

[Velocity Kendall]

[D.Labruyere]

When you ain’t got Science, you got Animisim.
At least that’s what the great cumulonimbus cloud god told me in a dream a few hours ago.

That's a bit crude... science also has a positive unconscious of knowledge, a level that eludes the consciousness of the scientist even though it is part of the scientific discourse. That is to say, science too has its own epistemology with rules and limits and thus it can not give an answer to all phenomena.

[s.ketch]

Nagual, medicine men, Shamans, witchdoctors…spooked by hallucenagenic plants.

When you ain’t got Science, you got Animisim.
At least that’s what the great cumulonimbus cloud god told me in a dream a few hours ago.

The problem with all this science stuff in this discussion is that science is about what is rather than what ought to be. So saying "Some drugs are harmless" and "All drugs aren't the same" is just making a series of Is-statements as premises to a conclusion of "People should do drugs" or "People should be allowed to do drugs." Which are Ought-statements. I ought-not need to state the reason why this is problematic. So this matter, as well-intended as people are in posting medical data, it does not answer the question of what ought to be. So whether or not we should or shouldn't do drugs is ultimately a question of values, morals and ethics. Which I tried to get across earlier. It's almost a misdirection to say that because LSD is 'less harmful' than Cocaine, we ought to do LSD instead of Cocaine. Or insert whatever drugs you want into that structure of reasoning.

I'm not against science or medicine (which I have to qualify because of the outstanding quality of argument here). I also realize that stating what is in terms of negative medical effects of drugs does not say that we ought-not do drugs. But again, it comes down to one's particular brand of ethics. Logic and science have their limits to what they can be applied.

A half-solution to this problem is to make an ought-statement as part of one's premises. In this case it becomes "All drugs aren't harmful. People should do drugs as long as they are not harmful. Therefore it's okay to do LSD/Shrooms/Weed/etc." It helps, but is not an ultimate solution because the issue arises of how one logically concluded the ought-statement of the premise.

lol@"racist" picture. Anything to win an argument, I guess.

[Velocity Kendall]

A half-solution to this problem is to make an ought-statement as part of one's premises. In this case it becomes "All drugs aren't harmful. People should do drugs as long as they are not harmful. Therefore it's okay to do LSD/Shrooms/Weed/etc." .

Id buy that. Id tack on "if they want to, and in a fun safe way", but yeah generally a half solution is better than what we've got now which is a failed prohibition.

It's almost a misdirection to say that because LSD is 'less harmful' than Cocaine, we ought to do LSD instead of Cocaine.

Thats baffling though. It seems rational to direct people away from the very harmful to what has been established statistically and scientifically as fairly benign doesnt it? That is the same basis for all sexual health education after all.

Kev, youve laid all this topic derailing "youre boring and childish" superiority complex crap on me before, many times, hence trying to resolve it in PM, but the parents thing?? Projecting much? i get on fine with my rents.
i did listen to what you said, it was the usual guff about fake cool and me being a totally negative influence and blah blah; tell me, if your "psychological wellness" is so exemplary why are you an unheard-of old nutter who hectors people with invective-filled screeds and posts beligerently racist cartoons on an internet message board? The Buddha you are not you vile old pig. just admit you fancy me and let it go. its ok!
if this [see below] is the result of the state of beatific contemplation your values and choices have brought you to, im pretty ok with doing the exact opposite of everything you say.



"if you live by a rule, and its come to this, what use was the rule?"
anton chugirh, no country for old men

[kev ferrara]

What strawmen anyway?

Yes, you don't even understand the logic of what I'm saying. Other people do, so I know its not me.

You also have no grasp on reality, mine (not old, nor young, but healthy and fit), the reality of the world (see image below), how well I am known in the various creative industries I work in (most of which are not in the fantasy-fiction realm), your own mental health and psychological issues, (which you seem unable to prevent yourself from displaying). Since I know you don't have the capacity to let go of your anger issues I'll have to be the one to give you the last word in order to end this particular round of you preaching dysfunction and me adbusting your preaching. I've said my bit.

[Velocity Kendall]

You have said your bit. its the same bit you always say. its the usual kev ferrara boilerplate; anyone who disagrees with you is at best ludicrously out of touch and at worst mentally ill, and in either case worthy of extreme unpleasantness. its no more convincing the 50th time than it was the first. it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

i lived in ghana for 3 years you nutcase. your characterisation of an costumed african man as a backward drug addict for no reason other than to make a lame joke was so offensive.. you bet ive got anger issues about that you racist fuck.

i wasnt "preaching dysfuction" (although coincidentally that is the name of my punk metal band.. nice choice of words by the way given the Church's attitudes to sexual health in africa..) i was just discribing my own drug expereinces and why i think people should avoid hard drugs, but maybe dabble in the harmless or almost harmless ones because they can be fun and or enlightening. hardly Mein Kampf is it?

[kev ferrara]

*sigh*

Racism racism racism. How self righteous you are.

Guess I have to spell it out for you. The issue was not about black people, nor zimbabwe in particular (similar stories abound throughout the "3rd world" and I just grabbed the first one I saw from a source you might respect). The point I was implying with that joke is a serious issue; that in cultures where medicine men and shamanism still rule, there are much more important things to tend to, realities to deal with, rather than pretending that drugs is magic. Such is the worst kind of religious sophistry. The ultimate narcissism of getting high and tuning out is pathetic. For instance, tending to basic medicinal and sanitation issues, the neglect of which leads to unnecessary illness and death.

Being high is the opposite of being responsible, either for one's self or one's fellow human beings. Its anybody's right to get blotto, and, equally, its the right of responsible people to find such behavior reprehensible and to stigmatize it so as not to have too many people in the society acting irresponsibly too much of the time.

No I am not saying the typhoid outbreaks in africa are due to people getting high. But they must be due to societal irresponsibility, which is a related issue. Basically the common theme is about taking responsibility for essential matters in life and not copping out.

Dealing rationally with reality is not a cliché, unless you consider reality itself a cliché.

(unfortunately, being called a racist is a bit too serious a charge to let stand uncontested.)

[s.ketch]

Id buy that. Id tack on "if they want to, and in a fun safe way", but yeah generally a half solution is better than what we've got now which is a failed prohibition.

But you do see the error right? I want to make sure you understand. You're using an ought-statement in your premise but you can't arrive at that ought-statement through a series of is-statements. From what you said above, it seems you're not totally sure of what I'm trying to get across. The facts at hand do not contain information on what to do with themselves. "Drugs are harmless" does not automatically mean "People should do drugs if they want to, safely." That's you unconsciously inserting your own ought-statement in between the first premise and the conclusion. It's a leap in logic, not a logical conclusion.

Thats baffling though. It seems rational to direct people away from the very harmful to what has been established statistically and scientifically as fairly benign doesnt it? That is the same basis for all sexual health education after all.

It may seem rational or reasonable, but it is not for science to decide. That is beyond science's jurisdiction. Like I said above, it's not necessary logical either. You must bridge that gap or concede that you're just arguing ethics/morality. If it's not based in logic or science, what is it based on? How did you arrive the conclusion that people shouldn't do drugs because they cause harm? Who's to say? Maybe some people like the harm aspect of drugs. Maybe some people like legal ramifications (f*ck the po-po). Maybe some people like the social aspect of it (F*ck society, I do what I want regardless of the consequences because freedom and stuff). And who are you to say I'm not allowed to hurt myself? If I want to drink myself into siroccos, then so be it.

See what I'm saying? It's not so simple. It comes down to how you think, and navigate these problems, not how many links that come up in a google search. And like I implied earlier, it's way less boring.

[Velocity Kendall]

" its the right of responsible people to find such behavior reprehensible and to stigmatize it "

you consider it your right and responsibility to stigmatise people who arnt like you..

for more information on where youre going wrong, here's wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

anyway what happened to letting me have the last word? anger issues?

[Velocity Kendall]

it is not for science to decide. That is beyond science's jurisdiction. Like I said above, it's not necessary logical either. You must bridge that gap or concede that you're just arguing ethics/morality. If it's not based in logic or science, what is it based on? How did you arrive the conclusion that people shouldn't do drugs because they cause harm? Who's to say?

Brain activity under the influence of LSD closely resembles Schizophrenia. Forgive me if I don't take something that produces a schizoid event. Forgive me if I trust science over some guy on the internet who did LSD once so he truly knows what it's like.

You got tripped by your own verbal gymnastics there brosephus.
i think your hearts in the right place, and youre right about one thing, its not for science to decide. its for people to decide, based on the evidence provided by science. the evidence is that E is pretty much harmless. the evidence is that smack is very harmful indeed. based on that evidence, people can make their own decision. i would suggest people who want to do drugs, and thats a lot of people, choose the less harmful option for the same reasons you made your choice. whether you define you choice in the quotes above as scientific or ethical doesnt bother me.

And who are you to say I'm not allowed to hurt myself? If I want to drink myself into siroccos, then so be it.

No im the guy saying go for it, find a party, get fucked up, its super fun, just dont do smack! and dont drink 8 litres of water if you do some pills.
speaking of which its friday night, PARTY TIMEEEE

[tobbA]

I don't think the argument has ever been that drugs are harmless, though, have it? I don't think any controlled substance is harmless. It seems to me that the gist of the argument is that "in my oppinion this drug is less harmless than this drug so it's unfair that I can't do this while someone else can do that."

It seems like the bottom line of all of it should be that drugs can be fun but they're ultimately damaging in any case. Alcohol is a big part human culture all over the world. Because of this we've learned to live with the downsides of it. The same can not be said about other drugs. I'm sure tobacco-smoking also has a lot of beneficial effects as well. Calming the nerves etc. But we all know the damaging down-sides of it as well.

The only argument in this discussion that I find reasonable is the idea that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies. But even this is a moral stand point, and should be treated as such.

[s.ketch]

Again, you're trying to one-up me and it's interfering with your ability to understand me. We're past the point of winning this discussion.

I never claimed my choice to not take LSD was a fact. I claimed the experimentally-backed effects were factual. I conceded that my choice not to do certain drugs was founded in my own brand of ethics, not science. Something you are unwilling to do as you cannot seem to make the distinction between what is or what ought be. Trusting a doctor on medical matters is not a contradiction of knowing that medicine has no say on what we ought to do with the information given on those matters.

UK and American diction isn't THAT different man.

[kev ferrara]

you consider it your right and responsibility to stigmatise people who arnt like you..

This lame PC jiu jitsu move won't work. Another attempt to get the upper hand by crying bigot? My god, do you argue in bad faith.

Thought experiment: So we shouldn't stigmatize the behavior of burglers and murderers? I mean, after all, they're just different than you or I.

So are you pro-murderer or are you a bigot?

You logic is fallacious, and you are abusing these highly charged words like "bigot" and "racist" because of it. Human beings have what's called "agency"... the ability to make choices. Outside of the law, the only way to promote behaviors helpful to the society at large is by having societal norms. Norms are inforced through memes which encourage people to find some things honorable and some things detestable. Which leads to the commendation or stigmatization, which hopefully encourages behavior helpful to the society.

You are in a psychological, ideological, social and economic state of not caring what is best for society. You seem to only care about your short term whims. And this is why I consider your "hot topic" posts to be poisonous and worth arguing against.

(unfortunately, being called a bigot is too charged an accusation to let stand uncontested. )