View Full Version : The Last Minority
It has become apparent that there is only one true minority in North America. When I say one true minority I say that because many of what we use to consider minorities don't really fit the bill any more. In the good ol' days we use to use the term to distinguish a group of people who were discriminated against by the public and, often, the media and/or government. This list once included blacks, Spanish, gays, women... basically everyone but white adult males. Unfortunately, I don't believe the word "minority" suits these groups anymore. No sir, not to the extent that it fits one other group. That is, the last true minority; drug users. No other group in days recently passed has been as discriminated and lied about by our government and media for years.
Allow me to begin with a few things that caught my eye after I'd already discovered this trend. To quote an article from the anti-drug side on the site http://www.mapinc.org/:
“I know from personal experience the negative consequences of smoking dope. In my first year of college I smoked it with two of my friends. All three of us flunked out. Unfortunately, my two friends became so addicted to dope that they ended up committing suicide. I was also involved in a very serious car accident with a high school friend. At 55 mph, we missed a telephone pole by two feet. My friend was driving and he was high on marijuana when he lost control of the vehicle. Been there, done that, and threw away the T-shirt. Marijuana is a terrible thing.”
Well that's just super. So because you had a dumb-ass for a friend marijuana is a terrible thing? Cool. So how many die a year from drunk driving? I guess then you'd agree if I said: Alcohol - It's worse than slaughtering babies.
A few quotes from the major mover "Parents: The Anti-Drug".
(1) "Smoking marijuana's is at least as bad as smoking cigarettes, and you already know how dangerous tobacco is to your health"
(2) "If you smoke marijuana, you could do things that jeopardize your future, like having sex or getting in trouble with the law"
(3) "Sometimes it makes people violent. Kids who use marijuana weekly are four times more likely to engage in violent behavior than those who don't."
(4) "More kids use marijuana than any other illicit drug by far"
(5) "Most kids who smoke marijuana don't make straight As. Research shows that kids with an average grade of "D" or below were more than four times more likely to have used marijuana in the past year as kids who reported an average grade of A."
(6) "The bottom line is clear: Marijuana trafficking and use is a big, often violent business. Have you and your kids made the connection between this dangerous drug and acts of violence committed against innocent people around the world?"
And now, the awkward replies:
(1) So you’re saying that if I smoke as many joints as smokers do cigarettes I’ll get the same problems they do? Oh mercy me, I best cut down on the 20 joints a day I smoke. Oh, wait, you say because I don’t use a filter it’s worse? You say that one joint is equal to 7 cigarettes? Gosh darn, I’ll have to cut down from the 3-4 joints I smoke a day then!
(2) If you drink alcohol… If you live in a city… If you step outside your door… Secondly, is there any proof that this is as a result of the drug? That is, any proof that any correlation found between marijuana users and “trouble with the law” or sex (???) is due to marijuana and not the individual’s personality?
(3) Again, drug or already in place personality? How about the fact that marijuana use is higher among poor neighborhoods. I suppose a poor neighborhood doesn’t have anything to do with the violence?
(4) For a reason. It’s the lightest.
(5) Again; pot or person – and – poor neighborhood.
(6) If pot was legalized the people behind it would be the government. Though, admittedly, the government is simply another form of criminal at times.
Perhaps by now you’ve noticed my major concern with the media and government unfortunately being the ones to teach young people about drugs. You see, the government is, contrary to some belief, intelligent. The people who run anti-doping campaigns are not complete idiots. They know one thing very well; marketing. Imagine yourself setting up an ad for the anti-drug community. What would make a good ad? Would you make an ad that gives the whole story? Surely you would not, because the whole story would include good experiences with drugs and the positive side of drug use. So the best idea is, what? That’s right, to only give one side of the story! The government’s job is not to give the truth, it is to give you the pieces of truth they wish you to know and then tell you it’s the whole puzzle.
Another major anti-drug gathering is the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. With a stated goal of ending drug use among American (and world) citizens, the Partnership is one of the largest organizations devoted to prejudice against drug users. In fact, the Partnership is one of the best places to see the policy of; “the truth we want you to know, and only that truth”. Here is an exert from their official information about the drug commonly known as shrooms (hallucinogenic mushrooms):
“When ingested, mushrooms produce a syndrome similar to alcohol intoxication sometimes accompanied by hallucinations. Once ingested, mushrooms generally cause feelings of nausea and other physical symptoms before the desired mental effects appear. The high from using mushrooms is mild and consists of distorted perceptions.”
Pardon me? Perhaps I missed something; “similar to alcohol intoxication”?? I would very much like to see one user or experimenter with mushrooms refer to the effects as similar to drinking beer! Secondly, where is the mention of the positive side of mushrooms? Why is there no mention of the commonly stated mind-opening or perspective-broadening caused by use of hallucinogens? Why, my friend? Because that would be giving the whole truth, and that’s never a good idea. In every drug’s section on the Partnership’s Information site there is a category listed as “long-term affects” which generally states the health risks involved in a drug. As there are no (known) health risks with mushrooms, it would seem right to simply put “no known health risks”. However, the Partnership would never do this. They, like the good little marketers they are, simply didn’t put a “Long-term” section. It merely looks like they just plum forgot!
The last point I would like to bring up is the one that initiated this whole sentiment in myself. My high school, which is a public school, recently handed out a “Drug Information” magazine. Featuring articles about drug use, the magazine’s stated goal was to “inform teens on the truth about drugs”. Allow me to sum up the magazine in one word; bullshit. Never have I laughed so hard as when I opened up the first page of this beautiful bounty of baseless claims.
The opening article discussed the nature of heroin production. It informed us that heroin was produced largely in Afghanistan and that the heroin production in Afghanistan supported renowned terrorist Osama bin Laden. It neglected to mention a few things however, such as that America supported said terrorist, or that the poppy-fields which one day produce heroin are the only way for a large amount of Afghans to make enough money to survive right now. This, though, caused little more than a chuckle to myself. My first big laugh came after the article, where the magazine presented (ready for this?) an “Ethics Test”. Let us forget the ridiculousness of this for just a second. The questions on the test (with possible answers of yes or no) were:
If I use heroin, am I supporting Osama bin Laden?
If I use heroin, am I supporting the destruction of my country?
If I use heroin, am I supporting the destruction of freedom?
If I know someone who uses heroin and do not report them to the police, am I supporting Osama bin Laden?
Below the questions it read: “While it is impossible to say ethics are objective, if you answered ‘yes’ to all these questions Congratulations, you have perfect ethics!!” I hope it is unnecessary for me to dive into the follies of this quote.
While the magazine was full of poor excuses for “informing teens” on the truth (such as “first-hand accounts” of teens who went straight from marijuana use to heroin addiction), there is only one more I wish to comment on. There was a two-page section of the magazine that it called an interview between a psychiatrist and three teens from Ontario high schools. At one point a teen says one of his brother’s friends once tried drugs. The doctor responds by asking if the brother did as well. The student’s reply: “No, his feelings were pretty much the same as mine. Why be a jerk?” The doctor then confirms the young boys opinion. Why indeed, Johnny. Later, one of the students asks the psychiatrist what drug use was like when he was young. Now, I would like to take a step back and analyze something here for a second. The current year is 2002. To have become a psychiatrist, the man would need to be at least, roughly, 25 years old. So let’s say the latest possible date he was born was 1977. But then again, what are the chances they give this important an assignment to some rookie? Reason would stand that it is likely that this great undertaking would be given to an established veteran. Say, someone around the age of 40-50? This would mean that the good doctor was born between 1952 and 1962 (roughly). Thus meaning the good doctor grew up during the late 60s to the mid 70s; an era which featured psychedelia, The Beatles and Timothy Leary. Now, back to the article. The question is posed and the doctor responds: “*Laughs*. Oh, the same as now, really. It was done by people on the fringe, it was never in the mainstream.” Drugs were never in the mainstream in the sixties and seventies? Hmmm, perhaps the good doctor lived on the mood. In a cave. Inside a cardboard box. With a rock keeping the cave shut.
With lies being told about the people and the products, only parts of the truth being told and both the government and public schools getting in on the act, it would seem our last true North American minority is drug users.
notme2000
12-05-02, 10:37 PM
How about smokers? They're decreasing in numbers (YAY) and are descriminated against all the time.
Mystech
12-06-02, 12:58 AM
Drug users aren't Minorities, they are criminals. And I'd say homosexuals fit the description of a minority prett damn well, myself. The man (straight man) is ALWAYS trying to put us down. Won't recognize our marrages, and we get beaten and killed because of it, too.
At least Drug usage is optional, it's something you bring on yourself, so I don't see why there is any use in whining about it.
Originally posted by Mystech
Drug users aren't Minorities, they are criminals. And I'd say homosexuals fit the description of a minority prett damn well, myself. The man (straight man) is ALWAYS trying to put us down. Won't recognize our marrages, and we get beaten and killed because of it, too.
Whinging sissy. I (the man) don't give a damn about you. Give up on this martyr complex bollocks and do something productive. Fuggin wagemonkey idiots in this world...
It's taken billions of years for the human mind to get to its current state. The drugs you seem so fond of work by disturbing that state.
Similarly, it's taken billions of years for human lungs to reach their current state. Breathing carbon monoxide changes that state.
Personally I find that whatever effects you might experience from illegal narcotics can also be found through other means.
Since those illegal drugs are harmful (they function by disturbing the natural state of the body, by altering brain chemistry and such), and the effects can be reached by other means, this means you are indulging in self-harm with no purpose. Very clever.
And no, the "altering brain chemistry" bit does not suddenly and mysteriously make you a wise old Chinaman.
Mystech:
Drug users aren't Minorities, they are criminals.
Uh huh. Need I mention that homosexuality is criminalized in some of the 'States by the exact same logic that criminalizes drugs?
Tyler:
And thank you muchly for the post. I can't do more than say that I agree.
"Drug users aren't Minorities, they are criminals."
Because something is in the law it makes it not exempt from being a minority? Then gays never were one. And Jews in Germany, seeing as the law stated they weren't citizens, were not a minority. Great logic ya got goin.
"And I'd say homosexuals fit the description of a minority prett damn well, myself. The man (straight man) is ALWAYS trying to put us down. Won't recognize our marrages, and we get beaten and killed because of it, too."
The state no longer supports prejudice against gays. The state supports hardcore prejudice against drug users/drugs.
"Personally I find that whatever effects you might experience from illegal narcotics can also be found through other means."
It's blatantly obvious from the statement above mine that you have experienced said drugs. That you have done pot, shrooms, acid, salvia, coke and every other drug. I mean, only a gosh-darned fool would be daft enough to say that he finds he can experience the same affect as one thing when he hasn't tried that one thing.
"Since those illegal drugs are harmful (they function by disturbing the natural state of the body, by altering brain chemistry and such), and the effects can be reached by other means, this means you are indulging in self-harm with no purpose. Very clever."
1) There is a purpose. I enjoy it. Second purpose? It allows me (and I speak for myself and no others. I greatly support the side that almost all drugs are misused terribly - especially pot) to view new realities and I almost always leave a true drug experience with an interesting perspective that I (note the word 'I') would not have come up with sober.
2) Many drugs are not bad for you. One such is salvia. Another is shrooms. Had you read my whole shpeal I'm sure you'd have noticed the bit about shrooms not having health risks attatched to them.
3) See the last reply I made about being able to attain the same affects.
"And no, the "altering brain chemistry" bit does not suddenly and mysteriously make you a wise old Chinaman."
Hazaah. And now like the good little boy that you are you'll surely go find where I insinuated that or said it, hmm?
Adam, you seemed to have missed the point completely. With your own little narrow, sheltered view of drug use and drug users you have failed to understand what I'm saying. This is not about drugs. This is not about if I like tripping out on shrooms and want it to be legal. Fuck legal. Except for salvia it doesn't really matter whether it's legal or illegal. This is about state-sponsored prejudice. This is about our governments actively lieing to children and teens and calling it the truth. This is about me not wanting to be classified as a "jerk" or (in California I saw a commercial that basically just said, and I quote; "Only stupid kids do drugs.") as a "stupid kid" because I enjoy the benefits and detriments of drugs. Adam, in your personal vendetta you appear to have against drug users (as has appeared in almost every drug-related thread I've seen) you have consistently closed your eyes and uttered the same phrases without having a fucking clue what you're talking about. (And please, do not consider telling me that you've seen the affects of drugs on other people. That's like saying "I watched some porn, I got this sex thing down pat"). My suggestion to you, Adam, is to read before you write. To sit down and open your mind. Because as of yet I've not seen you do that. And for another time, you completely 100% missed the point of the post.
Oh, and: "It's taken billions of years for the human mind to get to its current state. The drugs you seem so fond of work by disturbing that state."
None of the drugs I have experimented with save cocaine (which was, I fully admitt and agree, a complete mistake. However, I never did it again) mess with my brain in any serious manner. I smoke about 1/8th the required amount of pot on average that has shown to lead to brain problems. And personally, I do not intend on smoking late into my life at all. Let's put it this way Adam; I seem to remember (and I may be wrong) you expressed the fact that you do enjoy alcohol. Take about how much damage the booze has done to your liver and that's not as much damage as the pot has to my brain.
Thanks Xev. I've been meaning to get this up for a while.
Originally posted by Xev
Mystech:
Uh huh. Need I mention that homosexuality is criminalized in some of the 'States by the exact same logic that criminalizes drugs?
Explain, Xev?
CounslerCoffee
12-06-02, 08:18 PM
The last minority is not drug users. At on point in everyones life they have done drugs. I do one everyday, Coffee. Did you know that nutmeg if taken in a large quantity can get you high? Not like a Mary Jane high, but really high for at least 6 to 8 hours.
I believe the last minority to be people with Mutational Falsetto. (Speech problems)
-CounslerCoffee
It's blatantly obvious from the statement above mine that you have experienced said drugs. That you have done pot, shrooms, acid, salvia, coke and every other drug. I mean, only a gosh-darned fool would be daft enough to say that he finds he can experience the same affect as one thing when he hasn't tried that one thing.
I tried some, not all.
1) There is a purpose. I enjoy it. Second purpose? It allows me (and I speak for myself and no others. I greatly support the side that almost all drugs are misused terribly - especially pot) to view new realities and I almost always leave a true drug experience with an interesting perspective that I (note the word 'I') would not have come up with sober.
Purpose: you enjoy it. And to "view new realities". First, you can, as I said, achieve the results without external supplements. Second, you do not view new realities, you merely experience shifts in preception to to altering brain chemistry.
2) Many drugs are not bad for you. One such is salvia. Another is shrooms. Had you read my whole shpeal I'm sure you'd have noticed the bit about shrooms not having health risks attatched to them.
You missed my entire point. You exist because evolution has found a way to make you exist. You are what you are, physically. Part of that is your brain chemistry. Drugs which function by altering that brain chemistry are throwing off that balance of what you are. That alone is unhealthy. In other words, you indulge in self-harm for enjoyment. And I think if you would care to read anything from a first year psych textbook, you'll find that shrooms do indeed have negative health effects.
Hazaah. And now like the good little boy that you are you'll surely go find where I insinuated that or said it, hmm?
In my experience, kids who use drugs often have the idea that it alows them to see realities that others can not, when in fact all they are seeing is altered perceptions based on altered brain chemistry. Altered perception does not equal altered reality. Reality exists beyond you, not inside your head. This is why stoned idiots who think they can fly don't fly, instead they fall off and die.
Adam, you seemed to have missed the point completely. With your own little narrow, sheltered view of drug use and drug users you have failed to understand what I'm saying.
I think if you would care to explore beyond your idea of "drugs are good, mmkay" (if used wisely as prescribed by an incredibly knowledgable 16 year old), you might find that I base my views on: experience; research; and being a smart cooky. I understand what you're saying; but you're wrong.
This is about state-sponsored prejudice. This is about our governments actively lieing to children and teens and calling it the truth.
There is no truth from states. No real truth. Only lies built on real corpses.
Adam, in your personal vendetta you appear to have against drug users (as has appeared in almost every drug-related thread I've seen) you have consistently closed your eyes and uttered the same phrases without having a fucking clue what you're talking about.
1) I have a vendetta? If so, it is against voluntary stupidity only.
2) Me not having a clue what I'm talking about is entirely your assumption, Tyler. I'm very smart, I research well, and more often than not I'm 100% right.
None of the drugs I have experimented with save cocaine (which was, I fully admitt and agree, a complete mistake. However, I never did it again) mess with my brain in any serious manner.
Again, this demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the psychoactive effects of the drugs you have mentioned.
Let's put it this way Adam; I seem to remember (and I may be wrong) you expressed the fact that you do enjoy alcohol.
On rare occasions, yes. But then I fully understand the effects I am inflicting upon myself, and accept the price. From what I've seen, you do not fuly understand the effects of the drugs you use. If you did understand, and accepted the price, the great, go for it.
Tyler:
He has a vendetta against everyone, really. It's not restricted to drug users.
I'd give him my pity and not waste another thought on him, if I were you. He's really an insecure young man who makes up for his feelings of inadequecy around women and other people by pretending to be superiour to them. Inside, he knows that he's just another helot swallowing whatever he is told. However, this truth would be painful to aknowledge, thus he attacks anyone who differs in opinion from him. His responses to myself on the subject of sex and morality, and to any thiest or agnostic on the subject of God, are illuminating.
I've been in his shoes.
However, blatent idiocy offends me as much as it does you, so I think I'll be a hypocrite and respond to him:
In my experience, kids who use drugs often have the idea that it alows them to see realities that others can not, when in fact all they are seeing is altered perceptions based on altered brain chemistry. Altered perception does not equal altered reality. Reality exists beyond you, not inside your head. This is why stoned idiots who think they can fly don't fly, instead they fall off and die.
Where did Tyler claim that drugs allowed him to see alternate realities? Will you quote him?
Maia:
The moral for criminalizing homosexuality and criminalizing drugs is the same:
"You can do with your body what I say you can do, not what you feel is consistant with your best interests. Why? Because I have the power and you don't"
He has a vendetta against everyone, really. It's not restricted to drug users.
Not everyone. I have a vendeattya against stupidity, as previously stated.
Where did Tyler claim that drugs allowed him to see alternate realities? Will you quote him?
Originally posted by Tyler
It allows me (and I speak for myself and no others. I greatly support the side that almost all drugs are misused terribly - especially pot) to view new realities and I almost always leave a true drug experience with an interesting perspective that I (note the word 'I') would not have come up with sober.
Read more carefully.
"I am the lightning" ~ Me.
Adam:
Not everyone. I have a vendeattya against stupidity, as previously stated.
Nice evasion.
Read more carefully.
He says "new", not "alternate".
Read more carefully, indeed.
"I am the lightning" ~ Me.
If you're an overman, I'm the pinkie-sized fairy of the eradication of stupidity who rides about on the atomic unicorn of power.
grazzhoppa
12-07-02, 03:19 AM
Sorry if I repeat a lot.
Sadly, many teen awareness organizations use propaganda techniques that I learned when I was in 8th grade, thus making it blatantly obvious that they are showing only one side of the argument. I think though, they figure we already know most of the "bad" stuff about drugs.
And for those snippet facts; they are usually very biased to giving only what problems drugs cause. Obviously, when trying to get through to most teenagers, if you give one statement contradictory to what you are trying to prove, they will jump all over it and use it as an exuse. That may not be the case with some teens, probably the ones that are smart enough not to use illegal drugs. That may be the reason why they do that.
Many of my friends do marijuana a couple times a week and why? Because we live in a pretty rural area where there's nothing to do. Get kids involved in something they care about and they won't have to be doing illegal drugs to not be bored. I really like those My Antidrug:_____ commercials because they don't throw statistics at you or use blatant propaganda. And they give the right message, that is, if America's youth actually does something they won't feel like they should do drugs; which is true.
It's very sad that teens feel the need to do something bad for their health to not be bored. I'm sure you can find a "statistic" that says how many hours a day of TV or video games a drug-user watches. I say it's from boredom, when they use illegal drugs habitually.
And that "Ethics Test" is ridiculous. I'm sure most of your class was laughing too.
Nice evasion.
No, it's not actually any kind of evasion, nice or otherwise. It is simply what I wrote earlier.
He says "new", not "alternate".
Read more carefully, indeed.
Yay. Semantics.
If you're an overman, I'm the pinkie-sized fairy of the eradication of stupidity who rides about on the atomic unicorn of power.
Oh the joy of being stuck in a world where people make emotional judgements rather than assimilating facts and making informed decisions.
notme2000
12-07-02, 11:28 AM
I think it's healthy to experiment with drugs when you're 17ish. But it can be dangerous too. I started with pot, then mushrooms, and before I knew it was popping Ecstasy every weekend. I realized how bad it had gotten and quit all drugs completely. But doing all those drugs REALLY opened up my mind. Mushrooms and E especially... Pot was just kinda "something to do". But I think it's only healthy if it's only a phase and the user doesn't take it too far, like I did...
Maia:
The moral for criminalizing homosexuality and criminalizing drugs is the same:
"You can do with your body what I say you can do, not what you feel is consistant with your best interests. Why? Because I have the power and you don't"
So? So what? What will you do about it? Might pretty much does make right. Economical and military might. Moral might does nothing.
Maia:
Same thing Michel Foucault and Friedrich Nietzsche did:
Analyze it.
You'll note that I never called it "wrong".
"Might makes right" is one of the stupidest statements invented. It so blatently contradicts itself (rights are almost by definition, not dependant on might) that I marvel to why it's still used at all.
It's more accurate to say that there is no right.
OK, rephrased: Might can redefine 'right'.
"I tried some, not all."
Out of curiosity, and I understand if you deny to answer, which ones and in what kind of frequency. I say the latter part because pot, as well known, often takes people 2-4 tries before it works at all and shrooms can often have one flub try.
"Purpose: you enjoy it. And to "view new realities". First, you can, as I said, achieve the results without external supplements. Second, you do not view new realities, you merely experience shifts in preception to to altering brain chemistry"
Can you prove the first part to me? I've never once heard of someone experience seeing a strawberry walk into the room and shake their hand without the aid of drugs or isanity. Secondly, the only term that describes it is a new reality. I realize that I did not literally leave the real world and was transported to a new one. If you can get your mind around it, I am not as dumb as a two year old. But, the only phrase to describe salvia is a new reality. I was unaware of the fact that I was sitting down in the real world. I was unaware of my sense of touch. When I reach out on salvia to touch what my hallucination makes me think I am looking at, I can feel it. I can smell it. But generally I am not touching anything at all but air. And if I do touch something, I'm unaware of the fact that I'm touching it. Like I said, it's always a shock when the trip ends and I find out I'm sitting down (or rolling on the floor, or in some odd body position).
"You missed my entire point. You exist because evolution has found a way to make you exist. You are what you are, physically. Part of that is your brain chemistry. Drugs which function by altering that brain chemistry are throwing off that balance of what you are. That alone is unhealthy. In other words, you indulge in self-harm for enjoyment. And I think if you would care to read anything from a first year psych textbook, you'll find that shrooms do indeed have negative health effects."
So? I fail to see what's wrong with indulging in self-harm for pleasure? I play hockey with injuries. I'm in a play where part of my actions cause me great pain each time I do them. But the pain is not what causes the pleasure. It is just a side-affect. Should I stop these things as well?
"In my experience, kids who use drugs often have the idea that it alows them to see realities that others can not, when in fact all they are seeing is altered perceptions based on altered brain chemistry. Altered perception does not equal altered reality. Reality exists beyond you, not inside your head. This is why stoned idiots who think they can fly don't fly, instead they fall off and die."
Yup, I'd say salvia let's you see realities that others cannot. They're realities that don't actually exist. But for those 5-15 minutes they exist in my mind. No other drug I've tried, I would say, in any way creates new realities in my mind.
"I think if you would care to explore beyond your idea of "drugs are good, mmkay" (if used wisely as prescribed by an incredibly knowledgable 16 year old), you might find that I base my views on: experience; research; and being a smart cooky. I understand what you're saying; but you're wrong."
Adam, I've never seen a word from you that would make me call you a smart cooky. Including spelling the word cookie correctly. Or using semi-colons correctly. Though, I've never seen you say anything that makes me call you a complete idiot. Anyway, the fact that you say my view is that "drugs are good" shows not only your arrogance but that you didn't read my entire first post.
"There is no truth from states. No real truth. Only lies built on real corpses."
The state no longer delivers racist, sexist or in other ways prejudice messages in the manner it once did; except in relation to drugs and drug use. And that is what the entire rant/essay was about.
"2) Me not having a clue what I'm talking about is entirely your assumption, Tyler. I'm very smart, I research well, and more often than not I'm 100% right."
You're also ridiculously arrogant. I've talked to few who disagree. However, you do have no clue what you're talking about. Almost every word you've said to me has related to the plus/minus of drugs and the side affects of drugs. The essay had zero care for these things. I believe I did a rant on those things long, long ago on sciforums. This one barely touched on those.
"Again, this demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the psychoactive effects of the drugs you have mentioned."
Go find me the bad side affects of salvia.
"On rare occasions, yes. But then I fully understand the effects I am inflicting upon myself, and accept the price. From what I've seen, you do not fuly understand the effects of the drugs you use. If you did understand, and accepted the price, the great, go for it."
Pot is bad for me. Acid is terrible for me (never done it). Shrooms are poison. Salvia is not dangerous. Hash is terrible for my lungs. Coke is disasterous to my brain and nose. Still, knowing the side affects: "you indulge in self-harm for enjoyment." -- right?
"Yay. Semantics"
Not at all. New realities implies that something creates them. Seeing as I'm talking about a drug, I figured any idiot with half a brain could figure out I meant the drug and my mind created the reality. However, I was apparently wrong.
Out of curiosity, and I understand if you deny to answer, which ones and in what kind of frequency. I say the latter part because pot, as well known, often takes people 2-4 tries before it works at all and shrooms can often have one flub try.
Your little rule of thumb (aka urban myth) aside... Marijuana, hash, hypnoval, and some weird liquid some guy had in a little jar.
Can you prove the first part to me? I've never once heard of someone experience seeing a strawberry walk into the room and shake their hand without the aid of drugs or isanity.
What happens when you dream? You enter other "worlds", while your body is immobile and mostly safe from it. You may even dream of walking strawberries. These are naturally occurring mental states. They are normallyachieved by the body and brain alone, and the conscious mind can be schooled to accomplish what is usually only the realm of the subconscious. Give it a try.
Secondly, the only term that describes it is a new reality. I realize that I did not literally leave the real world and was transported to a new one. If you can get your mind around it, I am not as dumb as a two year old. But, the only phrase to describe salvia is a new reality.
The word is "hallucination".
So? I fail to see what's wrong with indulging in self-harm for pleasure?
The "self-harm" bit.
I play hockey with injuries. I'm in a play where part of my actions cause me great pain each time I do them. But the pain is not what causes the pleasure. It is just a side-affect. Should I stop these things as well?
It's your choice. If you fully understand the risks and accept the possible consequences, go for it.
Adam, I've never seen a word from you that would make me call you a smart cooky.
Gee, I'm happy for you. Have a pat on the head.
Including spelling the word cookie correctly. Or using semi-colons correctly.
1) Singular is "cooky". Plural is "cookies". Don't bother trying to fault my English; as this point demonstrates, I am your superior. Also it is rather immature to go nit-picking like that.
2) The semicolon is simply used to mark a greater degree of separation than the comma. Like many things in the English language, it can be used quite freely.
The state no longer delivers racist, sexist or in other ways prejudice messages in the manner it once did; except in relation to drugs and drug use. And that is what the entire rant/essay was about.
Your state must be very different to mine.
You're also ridiculously arrogant.
Posting pure fact is arrogant? Okay...
I've talked to few who disagree.
You consulted your teenage expert buddies, eh? Yippee.
However, you do have no clue what you're talking about. Almost every word you've said to me has related to the plus/minus of drugs and the side affects of drugs.
1) I absolutely know what I am talking about. Prove otherwise. I know teenagers always like to think they know everything, and people never learn anything once they leave high school, but you're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest.
2) Yes indeed, I have been referring to the positives and negatives of drugs, and of related social and psychological issues.
The essay had zero care for these things. I believe I did a rant on those things long, long ago on sciforums. This one barely touched on those.
Yes, you did a rant.
Go find me the bad side affects of salvia.
1) If smoked... well, you must know what that does already.
2) This is where some basic knowledge of psychology would serve you well. Regardless of the source, any consciousness or perception alteration (and salvia is about the most powerful occuring in nature) has the very real possibility of causing a psychotic break. It does not require extended and frequent use. It can happen the first time, or the 10,000th.
I'm sorry Tyler, but it is your own lack of knowledge which causes any disagreement.
Still, knowing the side affects: "you indulge in self-harm for enjoyment." -- right?
Rarely, but yes. And I absolutely understand and accept the consequences.
However, I was apparently wrong.
What you are wrong about is your many assumptions about me and my opinions.
Adam:
He says "new", not "alternate".
Read more carefully, indeed.
Yay. Semantics.
Not semantic.
There's a difference between viewing an alternate reality and viewing reality in new ways.
And the difference is not merely semantic, although it might seem that way to a thick-skulled Visigoth such as yourself.
Oh the joy of being stuck in a world where people make emotional judgements rather than assimilating facts and making informed decisions.
That doesn't even follow from what you quoted.
Have you been smoking dried Elmers, or are you being a bit more stupid than usual?
Tyler, c'mon, stop taking this shit seriously. The only use arrogant twats have is to amuse their superiours - i.e you and I.
It's really more effective just to taunt the silly monkeys than to argue with them.
And the difference is not merely semantic, although it might seem that way to a thick-skulled Visigoth such as yourself.
Yay. Racial slurs. Your standards are dropping by the day.
"Your little rule of thumb (aka urban myth) aside... Marijuana, hash, hypnoval, and some weird liquid some guy had in a little jar."
You'll note I said "often". It's okay, most people only read what they want ot read.
"What happens when you dream? You enter other "worlds", while your body is immobile and mostly safe from it. You may even dream of walking strawberries. These are naturally occurring mental states. They are normallyachieved by the body and brain alone, and the conscious mind can be schooled to accomplish what is usually only the realm of the subconscious. Give it a try"
Actually, I have another essay on dreams and why we value the dream world lesss than the real one. Adam, after having been on sleeping pills for disorder I have had about as fucked up a dream as one can imagine. And not one dream ever touched salvia.
"The word is "hallucination". "
Next time for your benefit I will not try to explain the hallucination. Most of the time when you went to explain something to another human being you use other words to describe. I suppose metaphors and literary tools aren't exactly your favourite thing?
"The "self-harm" bit"
Oh, well if you say so. Adam, you still haven't told me what's bad about self harm. Now, I know the answer to this. I know what the objective answer is. But you seem to just accept "self-harm" as bad because the words are self-harm.
"1) Singular is "cooky". Plural is "cookies". Don't bother trying to fault my English; as this point demonstrates, I am your superior. Also it is rather immature to go nit-picking like that."
Actually, in North American English the singular is cookie. I'll accept though that could be quite different in Australia.
"2) The semicolon is simply used to mark a greater degree of separation than the comma. Like many things in the English language, it can be used quite freely."
The semi-colon generally is not used as you choose to, a comma would have done perfectly. However, this is a useless debate.
"Your state must be very different to mine."
I'd liken the prejudice given against drug users and drugs to the state saying "Blacks are not as good as whites". Literally, there was a commercial in Cali that said "Drug users are stupid". You're government pay for advertising that says blacks are not as good as whites??? Wow, learn somethin' new everyday.
"You consulted your teenage expert buddies, eh? Yippee"
Yes, good call Adam. As you have seen I have many teenage friends on sciforums. Want to point out a single one? Oh, fuck. That's right. I don't have a single teenage friend on sciforums outside Xev.
"1) I absolutely know what I am talking about. Prove otherwise. I know teenagers always like to think they know everything, and people never learn anything once they leave high school, but you're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest"
The problem, Adam, is that you never addressed the essay. In the least. You made useless comments that really just make you look like you want to call drug users stupid. Oh, and thanks Adam. So teenagers don't know everything but you do.
"2) Yes indeed, I have been referring to the positives and negatives of drugs, and of related social and psychological issues."
And that had extremely little to do with the essay. If you wish to take up point with that shrooms are bad for you - fine. I will edit that part if you can give me a good quote. However, it affects my essay in no way.
"1) If smoked... well, you must know what that does already"
You didn't read my essay. Here's the kooky thing - no one smokes enough salvia to do damage in excess of having a wine with friday night dinner does.
"2) This is where some basic knowledge of psychology would serve you well. Regardless of the source, any consciousness or perception alteration (and salvia is about the most powerful occuring in nature) has the very real possibility of causing a psychotic break. It does not require extended and frequent use. It can happen the first time, or the 10,000th."
The same way crossing the road runs the risk of being hit by a car. Or having a drink creates the risk of destroying my liver.
"What you are wrong about is your many assumptions about me and my opinions."
You mean like that you have one? No, it's okay, I never assumed you had any opinions. None on this topic, anyway. It would take reading the essay to have those.
And on this note, Adam, I believe our arguement likely comes close to an end. It is more than apparent that you wish to debate the pros and cons of drugs. I do not. I don't care. What is a pro and con to me and what is a pro and con to you are two completely different things. It is a value judgement. This essay was about blatant state-endorsed prejudice. You have not once made a comment about this and, in such, proven that you have nothing of any importance to say.
Adam, the Visigoths:
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/Visigoths.html
They were not a race. They were a German tribe.
C'mon dude, I found that link with three seconds on Google. Even if you don't know who the Visigoths were (although most semi-educated people do) , you should know what Google is.
Moron.
You'll note I said "often". It's okay, most people only read what they want ot read.
Late qualifications, yes...
And not one dream ever touched salvia.
I'm sorry your natural imagination is limited.
I suppose metaphors and literary tools aren't exactly your favourite thing?
A local poetry magazine seemed to think I was okay with such things. *shrug*
Oh, well if you say so. Adam, you still haven't told me what's bad about self harm. Now, I know the answer to this. I know what the objective answer is. But you seem to just accept "self-harm" as bad because the words are self-harm.
Well, go to the big building with the books and look up the meaning of the word "harm".
Actually, in North American English the singular is cookie. I'll accept though that could be quite different in Australia.
Actually, in North America the singular is "cooky", as described in the American Funk & Wagnall's Standard Desk Dictionary. However, I do realise education is suffering up there, and many strange spellings are appearing for various words.
I don't have a single teenage friend on sciforums outside Xev.
Does that tell you something?
The problem, Adam, is that you never addressed the essay. In the least.
It's coming, after this post...
You made useless comments that really just make you look like you want to call drug users stupid.
No, only those who get into something without first knowing all possible effects or probabilities.
Oh, and thanks Adam. So teenagers don't know everything but you do.
No, I just no more than many teenagers. Got the papers to prove it. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
You didn't read my essay. Here's the kooky thing - no one smokes enough salvia to do damage in excess of having a wine with friday night dinner does.
Here's the thing: you're wrong again. It is said here (Australia is very anti-smoking) that each single puff of a cigarette reduces life expectancy by a week. The main problem as far as I'm concerned is that it only takes one good particle of ash to create a cancerous growth in the lungs. Again, it could be the first or the 10,000th.
The same way crossing the road runs the risk of being hit by a car. Or having a drink creates the risk of destroying my liver.
As you don't get it, I will elucidate. Many things can kill you instantly or cause slow agonising deaths which last decades. Educated or clever people tend to look at those things and try to limit them to an acceptable level, to reduce the probability of an early death.
I know perfectly well what Visigoths were. You used the term as a slur, as though "Visigoth" means something bad. Hence, a racial slur. Similar to if I called you a filthy honkey.
Either consider your posts more carefully as you write them, or read them better afterward.
Adam:
A: Visigoths were not a race. They were a tribe. My calling you a Visigoth is as racist as your calling me a "Scythian" (only I am a Scythian :) )
B: They were barbarians. No historian disputes this. Thus, my calling you one is the same thing as my calling you a barbarian.
Which, given your attitude towards women, would not be off target by much.
C: The race card is for pussies. Ergo, you are a pussy.
*Edit to add:*
"Barbarism has no ethnicity and evil has no religion."
--Prime Minister John Howard - September 12, 2002
It has become apparent that there is only one true minority in North America. When I say one true minority I say that because many of what we use to consider minorities don't really fit the bill any more. In the good ol' days we use to use the term to distinguish a group of people who were discriminated against by the public and, often, the media and/or government. This list once included blacks, Spanish, gays, women... basically everyone but white adult males. Unfortunately, I don't believe the word "minority" suits these groups anymore. No sir, not to the extent that it fits one other group. That is, the last true minority; drug users. No other group in days recently passed has been as discriminated and lied about by our government and media for years.
I would think members of the groups you mention would disagree, for a start.
As for other modern day groups: I would suggest those who suffer terminal or chronic diseases for which treatment can only be purchased by the wealthy. Like Australia, the USA at least (I don't know about Canada's health system) is greatly affected by this problem. Ask Bbcboy if homosexuals he knows in North America (if he knows any) suffer discrimination.
Allow me to begin with a few things that caught my eye after I'd already discovered this trend. To quote an article from the anti-drug side on the site http://www.mapinc.org/:
“I know from personal experience the negative consequences of smoking dope. In my first year of college I smoked it with two of my friends. All three of us flunked out. Unfortunately, my two friends became so addicted to dope that they ended up committing suicide. I was also involved in a very serious car accident with a high school friend. At 55 mph, we missed a telephone pole by two feet. My friend was driving and he was high on marijuana when he lost control of the vehicle. Been there, done that, and threw away the T-shirt. Marijuana is a terrible thing.”
Well that's just super. So because you had a dumb-ass for a friend marijuana is a terrible thing? Cool. So how many die a year from drunk driving? I guess then you'd agree if I said: Alcohol - It's worse than slaughtering babies.
Let me ask you: Would you discount evolution theory as rubbish if your only knowledge of it came from Whatsupyall?
A few quotes from the major mover "Parents: The Anti-Drug".
(1) "Smoking marijuana's is at least as bad as smoking cigarettes, and you already know how dangerous tobacco is to your health"
(2) "If you smoke marijuana, you could do things that jeopardize your future, like having sex or getting in trouble with the law"
(3) "Sometimes it makes people violent. Kids who use marijuana weekly are four times more likely to engage in violent behavior than those who don't."
(4) "More kids use marijuana than any other illicit drug by far"
(5) "Most kids who smoke marijuana don't make straight As. Research shows that kids with an average grade of "D" or below were more than four times more likely to have used marijuana in the past year as kids who reported an average grade of A."
(6) "The bottom line is clear: Marijuana trafficking and use is a big, often violent business. Have you and your kids made the connection between this dangerous drug and acts of violence committed against innocent people around the world?"
Selective points rather than a whole picture, yes, they don't present it properly. In Australia, cocaine use is most prevalent among white-collar professionals, or so the police tell us.
And now, the awkward replies:
(1) So you’re saying that if I smoke as many joints as smokers do cigarettes I’ll get the same problems they do? Oh mercy me, I best cut down on the 20 joints a day I smoke. Oh, wait, you say because I don’t use a filter it’s worse? You say that one joint is equal to 7 cigarettes? Gosh darn, I’ll have to cut down from the 3-4 joints I smoke a day then!
(2) If you drink alcohol… If you live in a city… If you step outside your door… Secondly, is there any proof that this is as a result of the drug? That is, any proof that any correlation found between marijuana users and “trouble with the law” or sex (???) is due to marijuana and not the individual’s personality?
(3) Again, drug or already in place personality? How about the fact that marijuana use is higher among poor neighborhoods. I suppose a poor neighborhood doesn’t have anything to do with the violence?
(4) For a reason. It’s the lightest.
(5) Again; pot or person – and – poor neighborhood.
(6) If pot was legalized the people behind it would be the government. Though, admittedly, the government is simply another form of criminal at times.
Are you aware that marijuana is slowly becoming quite legal here in Australia? Our government has a rather interesting policy: Why let the criminals make money from it when we can instead? It happened with prostitution, now it's happening with hootch.
Perhaps by now you’ve noticed my major concern with the media and government unfortunately being the ones to teach young people about drugs. You see, the government is, contrary to some belief, intelligent. The people who run anti-doping campaigns are not complete idiots. They know one thing very well; marketing. Imagine yourself setting up an ad for the anti-drug community. What would make a good ad? Would you make an ad that gives the whole story? Surely you would not, because the whole story would include good experiences with drugs and the positive side of drug use. So the best idea is, what? That’s right, to only give one side of the story! The government’s job is not to give the truth, it is to give you the pieces of truth they wish you to know and then tell you it’s the whole puzzle.
It does suck. I was under the impression that the FDA was responsible to the public. Would they not be held accountable for irresponsible or false advertising? I don't know, I've never seen any of the ads in North America, just asking.
Another major anti-drug gathering is the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. With a stated goal of ending drug use among American (and world) citizens, the Partnership is one of the largest organizations devoted to prejudice against drug users.
It would be nice if such bodies were interested solely in releasing pure data and letting individuals make up their own minds. This is why, instead of reading crap from such places, I get my information regarding drugs from the National Drug research Centre and from peer-reviewed psychology texts.
The last point I would like to bring up is the one that initiated this whole sentiment in myself. My high school, which is a public school, recently handed out a “Drug Information” magazine. Featuring articles about drug use, the magazine’s stated goal was to “inform teens on the truth about drugs”. Allow me to sum up the magazine in one word; bullshit. Never have I laughed so hard as when I opened up the first page of this beautiful bounty of baseless claims.
Here, the drugs information booklets in schools come in two types: produced by the government, and produced by students. Those produced by students rarely have any solid data.
The opening article discussed the nature of heroin production. It informed us that heroin was produced largely in Afghanistan and that the heroin production in Afghanistan supported renowned terrorist Osama bin Laden. It neglected to mention a few things however, such as that America supported said terrorist, or that the poppy-fields which one day produce heroin are the only way for a large amount of Afghans to make enough money to survive right now. This, though, caused little more than a chuckle to myself. My first big laugh came after the article, where the magazine presented (ready for this?) an “Ethics Test”. Let us forget the ridiculousness of this for just a second. The questions on the test (with possible answers of yes or no) were:
The poppy fields of Afghanistan have indeed supported various types of war and such for a long time. Those working the poppy fields are not "supported" by the job. They are held in chains by it. Entire generations are born, work under armed supervision, and die, in those poppy fields.
... such as “first-hand accounts” of teens who went straight from marijuana use to heroin addiction...
Well, it happens. Generally not in minutes or overnight, but many of my own friends in high school gradually moved from one to another.
There was a two-page section of the magazine that it called an interview between a psychiatrist and three teens from Ontario high schools. At one point a teen says one of his brother’s friends once tried drugs. The doctor responds by asking if the brother did as well. The student’s reply: “No, his feelings were pretty much the same as mine. Why be a jerk?” The doctor then confirms the young boys opinion. Why indeed, Johnny. Later, one of the students asks the psychiatrist what drug use was like when he was young. Now, I would like to take a step back and analyze something here for a second. The current year is 2002. To have become a psychiatrist, the man would need to be at least, roughly, 25 years old. So let’s say the latest possible date he was born was 1977. But then again, what are the chances they give this important an assignment to some rookie? Reason would stand that it is likely that this great undertaking would be given to an established veteran. Say, someone around the age of 40-50? This would mean that the good doctor was born between 1952 and 1962 (roughly). Thus meaning the good doctor grew up during the late 60s to the mid 70s; an era which featured psychedelia, The Beatles and Timothy Leary. Now, back to the article. The question is posed and the doctor responds: “*Laughs*. Oh, the same as now, really. It was done by people on the fringe, it was never in the mainstream.” Drugs were never in the mainstream in the sixties and seventies? Hmmm, perhaps the good doctor lived on the mood. In a cave. Inside a cardboard box. With a rock keeping the cave shut.
Indeed it wasn't the mainstream. Do you look at film of Woodstock and assume that most of North America was there? I don't know, maybe it was different over there. But here, the psychadelia trip things was about as mainstream as the goth thing is today.
With lies being told about the people and the products, only parts of the truth being told and both the government and public schools getting in on the act, it would seem our last true North American minority is drug users.
Yes, you will not get the truth from Parent Teacher Association leaflets. I would suggest that you do what I do; read investigations reports from the FDA, and read peer-reviewed journals. And since your main point seems to be the spread of information, perhaps the best thing you can do is tell all your friends to do the same.
A: Visigoths were not a race. They were a tribe. My calling you a Visigoth is as racist as your calling me a "Scythian" (only I am a Scythian :) )
Race, tribe, peoples. Semantics. Covering your arse seems to be your latest hobby.
B: They were barbarians. No historian disputes this. Thus, my calling you one is the same thing as my calling you a barbarian.
Historians refer to the Visigoths as barbarians, eh? If you insist. Again, you are covering your arse.
Which, given your attitude towards women, would not be off target by much.
And what, please tell me, is my attitude toward women?
C: The race card is for pussies. Ergo, you are a pussy.
So Malcolm X was a pussy if he said that it was wrong for people to say "you dirty nigger"?
Adam:
Race, tribe, peoples. Semantics. Covering your arse seems to be your latest hobby.
There is a difference.
Historians refer to the Visigoths as barbarians, eh? If you insist. Again, you are covering your arse.
"Germanic barbarian tribe" according to my archeology text.
Naturalists and ehnographers divide mankind into several distinct varieties, or races. Cuvier refers them all to three, Pritchard enumerates seven, Agassiz
eight, Pickering describes eleven. One of the common
classifications is that of Blumenbach, who makes five races: the Caucasian, or white race, to which belong
the greater part of the European nations and those of
Western Asia; the Mongolian, or yellow race, occupying
Tartary, China, Japan, etc.; the Ethiopian, or negro ace, occupying most of Africa (except the north),
Australia, Papua, and other Pacific Islands; the
American, or red race, comprising the Indians of North
and South America; and the Malayan, or brown race,
which occupies the islands of the Indian Archipelago,
etc. Many recent writers classify the Malay and
American races as branches of the Mongolian.
A bit dated, from Websters.
So Malcolm X was a pussy if he said that it was wrong for people to say "you dirty nigger"?
Malcolm did not "play the race card". He fought for equality for his people.
Playing the race card implies an unnecessary use of one's minority status, or accusing one's opponent of racism, in order to win a concession or argument.
Oh god, it's getting so sad...
In other words, Adam, you are wrong and can't admit it.
Tell me, Adam, does this really compensate you for the fact that you can't interact with the opposite sex? Or for the fact that the world doesn't conform to your idea of what it should be?
Yes, Adam, it is getting sad. Tell me, Adam honey, does playing alpha male online help you get over the fact that you aren't one in the mundane world?
"As for other modern day groups: I would suggest those who suffer terminal or chronic diseases for which treatment can only be purchased by the wealthy. Like Australia, the USA at least (I don't know about Canada's health system) is greatly affected by this problem. Ask Bbcboy if homosexuals he knows in North America (if he knows any) suffer discrimination."
I'm sure they would disagree. And they'd be wrong. The state does not post ads like "Only dumb people are gay". Discrimination is being taught on purpose about drug users.
And Canada's health system is basically free.
"Let me ask you: Would you discount evolution theory as rubbish if your only knowledge of it came from Whatsupyall?"
Intelligent people take multiple sources. Is everyone intelligent? Hell no. And are most teenagers willing to put out the effort to gather a whole bunch of sources? Hell no. So the government is feeding off this by lieing.
"Are you aware that marijuana is slowly becoming quite legal here in Australia? Our government has a rather interesting policy: Why let the criminals make money from it when we can instead? It happened with prostitution, now it's happening with hootch."
Same in Canada, except prostitution is still illegal. Pot legalization would make BC the most popular spot for young folk in North America. Sadly, the Yankee government has deteered us from legalizing.
"It does suck. I was under the impression that the FDA was responsible to the public. Would they not be held accountable for irresponsible or false advertising? I don't know, I've never seen any of the ads in North America, just asking."
The FDA and other such organizations' have moto's of things such as "Trying to teach kids about hte danger of drugs" - "Trying to inform kids on the evils of drugs". The only one that said it was trying to teach kids the truth was the one that had an Ethics test.
"Here, the drugs information booklets in schools come in two types: produced by the government, and produced by students. Those produced by students rarely have any solid data."
And those produced by the government are half-truths.
"Well, it happens. Generally not in minutes or overnight, but many of my own friends in high school gradually moved from one to another."
Oh no, these stories were about "I smoked pot for a month, then I tried heroin, now I'm on the street".
"Indeed it wasn't the mainstream. Do you look at film of Woodstock and assume that most of North America was there? I don't know, maybe it was different over there. But here, the psychadelia trip things was about as mainstream as the goth thing is today."
Not in North America. Not by a long shot. Timothy Leary, The Beatles, Woodstock (as you said), everything for a good few years involving the youth in the mainstream had some element of drugs. You cannot listen to Steppenwolf or Led Zeppeling and not hear the drug allusions. Two words - Jefferson Airplane.
"Yes, you will not get the truth from Parent Teacher Association leaflets. I would suggest that you do what I do; read investigations reports from the FDA, and read peer-reviewed journals. And since your main point seems to be the spread of information, perhaps the best thing you can do is tell all your friends to do the same."
Oh I know my drug info. But few will take the initiative I have to research a drug (such as salvia) extensively before experimenting. And if the government, who most people assume will tell us the truth, tells every kid what they do...
Vortexx
12-09-02, 02:53 PM
I watched those u.s. anti-drug sites for a good laugh, cause every child with some sense would ask the following question:
"If drugs just makes you sick, gives you nauseau and makes you vommit, WHY do these people take drugs ?"
fadingCaptain
12-09-02, 03:53 PM
Tyler,
I agree with most of your views on drugs and the failed pathetic campaigns to curb drug use in north america.
However, I do not agree that drug users are the last minority. Here is your definition:
a group of people who were discriminated against by the public and, often, the media and/or government. This
Now, surely you know: a. Gays are routinely beaten or killed. b. Atheists are outcasted and demonized (at least in US).
I believe those two groups are discriminated against more than drug users...but maybe it is different to the north?
fC:
Now, surely you know: a. Gays are routinely beaten or killed.
Define "routinely". Can you show that "hate crimes" against gays are common?
b. Atheists are outcasted and demonized (at least in US).
I've never met with any sort of discrimination because of my athiesm, and I am very, very open about it. Of course there are a few fundies who'll yell that I'm a hellbound little sinner, but that's their "right".
There is no institutional prejudice against gays or athiests. There is widespread institutional prejudice against drug users.
Case closed? :m:
fadingCaptain
12-09-02, 04:59 PM
Define "routinely". Can you show that "hate crimes" against gays are common?
Hmmm. Routinely and common are too subjective. But it is rising which is more my point.
Hate crimes (http://www.hrc.org/issues/hate_crimes/background/stats/stats2000.asp)
Percentage of crimes based on sexual orientation 1991: 8.9%
Percentage of crimes based on sexual orientation 2000: 16.1%
I've never met with any sort of discrimination because of my athiesm, and I am very, very open about it.
Hmmm. Let me guess - you are not from the south. At any rate, our personal experiences differ. 10-15% of americans are atheist. Now, how many do you think are 'in the closet'?
There is no institutional prejudice against gays or athiests. There is widespread institutional prejudice against drug users.
Institutional. That is the key word. Institutional as in governmental? Then I agree and I do believe that was Tyler's main point. But I would just point out that they are other 'institutions' that feed discrimination and prejudice...
fC:
Hmmm. Routinely and common are too subjective. But it is rising which is more my point.
Hate crimes
Percentage of crimes based on sexual orientation 1991: 8.9%
Percentage of crimes based on sexual orientation 2000: 16.1%
Before I admit defeat - *smiles* - I'm not sure I would call 16% "common".
And that rise - could it not be the result both of better reporting - i.e gays not as afraid to say "I am gay and have been attacked because of it"
Remember how rape incident reporting went up during and after the Feminist movement? I don't think there were more rapists, just women were not as afraid to talk about it.
Hmmm. Let me guess - you are not from the south. At any rate, our personal experiences differ. 10- 15% of americans are atheist. Now, how many do you think are 'in the closet'?
True. I have lived in a multi-religious college town in Michigan most my life.
I'm not saying that I've never been bugged. I'm just saying that my rights have never been violated.
But in the Soulth, I do agree. Things are likely very different.
Institutional. That is the key word. Institutional as in governmental? Then I agree and I do believe that was Tyler's main point. But I would just point out that they are other 'institutions' that feed discrimination and prejudice...
I will agree with you there.
However, our government (you are American, correct?) does make an effort to protect gays. It actively persecutes drug users.
fadingCaptain
12-09-02, 05:20 PM
And that rise - could it not be the result both of better reporting - i.e gays not as afraid to say "I am gay and have been attacked because of it"
Hmmm true, but that only emphasizes my point...
However, our government (you are American, correct?) does make an effort to protect gays. It actively persecutes drug users.
Yes I agree and am American. I haven't used illegal drugs for years but I do empathize. Drugs can be very dangerous but our policies only make them more so...
fC:
Hmmm true, but that only emphasizes my point...
That gays meet with social prejudice? I agree.
Yes I agree and am American. I haven't used illegal drugs for years but I do empathize. Drugs can be very dangerous but our policies only make them more so...
Yes, indeed. I like Cris' signature:
"People should be free to do anything they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others."
It's a more precise summary of my own political ideals than I could manage.
I'm not saying that drug users have it worse than gays. What I'm saying is that our government should operate more along the lines of that ideal.
"Now, surely you know: a. Gays are routinely beaten or killed. b. Atheists are outcasted and demonized (at least in US).
I believe those two groups are discriminated against more than drug users...but maybe it is different to the north?"
Well, I've yet to hear of someone being outcasted for being an atheist in Canada, but I could be wrong. I'm sure in some small towns up north it happens. And in Canada, gays are not in as much of a problem as in the U.S.
However, this is beside the point. The problem is that drugs and drug users are descriminated by the government, gays are not.
Slacker47
12-11-02, 10:39 PM
If you like drugs do them. I love drugs. My life completely changed for the better because of drugs.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.