A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jazzcyclist wrote:You're obfuscating Marlow. 1) Were the folks who mentioned fear of getting busted at Stanford or in the Navy? 2) Was fear of getting busted the primary reason you didn't try drugs at Stanford or were you like me, a person who refused to be bullied by peer pressure and saw no point in taking on a vice that would potentially bring very bad consequences? 3) If there were friends of yours who you claim were "fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about" but afraid of the legal consequences of doing drugs, why did they all "experiment once or twice"?
1) Both 2) The latter - we were 'afraid' of the consequences. The potential price was too high. 3) Same reason Odysseus wanted to hear the Sirens' song.
Marlow wrote: I see zero difference between the two of us; we're just on opposite sides of the same coin.
That's the way I see it too. Marlow, by his own admission, opposes the libertarian philosophy of governance in favor of the nanny-state model which means that historical evidence and statistics regarding Prohibition and the Netherlands aren't needed for him to defend his point of view. I respect the fact that he admits that he's a nanny-stater a whole lot more than folks who want to control or eliminate the vices that adults can legally indulge while at the same time claiming to be small-government, laissez-faire conservatives.
jazzcyclist wrote:which means that historical evidence and statistics regarding Prohibition and the Netherlands aren't needed for him to defend his point of view.
Prohibition failed because alcohol consumption was grandfathered into our culture. Drug use isn't (yet). Historical evidence is just that, historical. It's predictive properties are highly suspect. And yes, I am very much a Nanny-stater for one simple reason: too many people have PROVEN their inability to make good choices, and by that I do not mean the choices I want them to make, I mean the choices that don't tend to ruin themselves and those around them.
jazzcyclist wrote:which means that historical evidence and statistics regarding Prohibition and the Netherlands aren't needed for him to defend his point of view.
Prohibition failed because alcohol consumption was grandfathered into our culture. Drug use isn't (yet).
But remember that cigarettes have always been legal in this country too, and yet cigarette use among Americans has steadily declined over the last 50 years, and there are fewer teenage smokers per capita today than at any point in our lifetimes. That's because as soon as people began to realize that cigarettes were bad for you, and the government began to agressively educate the American people on their downside, young became increasingly reluctant to take up this vice, and cigarette smoking was no longer the cool thing to do. This proves that through education, people can be discouraged from trying new vices even when they're legal.
It's not just the Netherlands. Portugal decriminalised possession and use a decade ago, allowing them to address the real issue in a less fraught environment. Doesn't seem to create a magic environment with unicorns grazing but certainly hasn't created the downfall of civilisation.
Pego wrote:Your analogy is preposterous and borders on offensive. I am done here.
I am vehemently against anything that 'enables' people to hurt others - (
Drugs don't enable people to hurt others, they may be a contributing factor in some cases but it isn't the drugs that hurt people and in the case of most recreational drugs it is the opposite
Recreational drugs are in many cases a contributing factor to people getting on with each other.
our football clubs were banned from European competition
Fuelled by alcohol and club rivalry there wasn't a weekend that went by without people being injured and killed in the riots.
Eventually alcohol was banned in stadiums and everyone searched before they went in, so fans started taking ecstasy instead !! No more riots people were too busy being happy and loving each other.
The influence of the magic pills spread beyond the confines of the thriving club scene. In 1991 and 1992, Ecstasy began to permeate into other walks of life. As more and more people discovered it, the national mood seemed to lift. Protestant and Catholic kids were hugging each other in the clubs in Northern Ireland. Amazingly, arrests for football violence dropped by 22% that year. It was never really confirmed, but many fans said this was because Ecstasy had replaced beer as the drug of choice on the terraces. Rival gangs were meeting in the clubs, taking tablets and calling truce.http://www.ephidrina.org/ecstasy/britain.html
When i first started going to clubs in London in the early 90's EVERYBODY took ecstasy (i mean everyone), and clubs were totally mixed, gay, straight, black white, rich, poor, there would be people of all walks of life making friend with each other. One of the reasons that we have relatively good race relations and acceptance of homosexuality (only 16% are opposed to marriage or civil partnerships, marriage will become legal in the next year and there are no major politicians who oppose it) is because there is a whole generation of people who spent their formative years taking ecstasy dancing and making friends with people from all walks of life.
Of course i know people for whom taking drugs became a problem but for everyone of them i know 100 who took recreational drugs at the weekend had an amazing time, made friends for life, had their eyes opened to all kinds of new people and experiences and gut up on Monday morning and put in a productive week at work
For someone with no personal experience of drugs to pontificate that drugs 'enable people to hurt others' shows contemptible ignorance
Marlow wrote:So those are good things that people enjoy . . . not able to control their own (destructive) desires.
I know you're a teetotaler, but have you ever had a drink?
People (including me) doing plenty of stupid stuff when we're sober. Why would anyone intentionally put themselves (and others!) MORE in "harm's way" (not necessarily physical)?
Because it's fun and the fun FAR out ways the negatives (well in my old age that isn't so try anymore, i can't cope with the hangovers )
Pego wrote:It is possible that there could be a few more "zombies" but not likely. There was no spike in number of users when the Netherlands legalized it. There also would be more funds available for prevention and treatment (sales tax and savings from enforcement and incarceration).
More importantly it severs the link between drugs and crime. US prisons are bursting with people locked up for minor drug offences or crimes committed in order to get drugs. If drug consumption was decriminalised (you can still go after suppliers, just not for possession or small time dealers) the trillions that could be spent on treatment and education would be a real War on Drugs.
Pego wrote:loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use.
The Dutch have always been soft on drugs, so when they loosened the laws, of course there was no change. In the USA a loosening of the law (notice that even they have laws against its use) would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use as older people publically role modeled it use. Is that what you really want?
Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law. Middle-aged people who are married with children and good jobs might be restrained by drug laws, but not young people. My guess is that young people in college settings are no more restrained by drug laws than the general polulation is by speeding laws.
Mump, Does it surprise you that we see the world from diametrically opposed perspectives, given our somewhat disparate life experiences? I can't think of two people LESS alike on this forum than you and I, but ya know what, bro, you're OK!
jazzcyclist wrote:3) If there were friends of yours who you claim were "fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about" but afraid of the legal consequences of doing drugs, why did they all "experiment once or twice"?
3) Same reason Odysseus wanted to hear the Sirens' song.
Then I guess they weren't that afraid of the cops, were they?
jazzcyclist wrote:3) If there were friends of yours who you claim were "fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about" but afraid of the legal consequences of doing drugs, why did they all "experiment once or twice"?
3) Same reason Odysseus wanted to hear the Sirens' song.
Then I guess they weren't that afraid of the cops, were they?
Don't forget that 'back in the day', when there were no cops or even laws, life expectancies were pretty darn short, and it was not just because of the lack of medicine. As William Golding intimated, man's inhumanity to man knows few bounds - I just happen to think that drugs and alcohol exacerbate our already perilous journey through life . . . in the long term (though obviously not in the short term . . . Carpe Diem is a great philosophy (and I often seek to embrace it) as long as we don't have to worry about the 'diem' after today).
Mump, Does it surprise you that we see the world from diametrically opposed perspectives, given our somewhat disparate life experiences? I can't think of two people LESS alike on this forum than you and I, but ya know what, bro, you're OK!
You mentioned "peripheral neuropathy to exceedingly rare such as Marchiafava-Bignami syndrome". I've been Dxd with, among other things, peripheral neuropathy which is a 24/7 'experience'. And Type II Diabetes, currently managed by diet. No alch for 38 yrs, and relatively little (for young adult) prior. Ok - that is enough personal info (maybe too much)
Been to neurologist(s) and podiatrist and gen med - they all shrug their shoulders when ask about Tx and whats the general clinical course. If I live as long as lonewolf I have 20 yrs or so. Can you give me any clue or direction - I've researched somewhat on internet.
1. Ensures that many young folks of color get tossed into prisons and permanently off of voter rolls. Primarily because the feds feed a gazillion dollars of military/police equipment to local law enforcement if they keep their drug bust numbers up. Of course local authorities can't keep posting high arrest numbers by raiding the dorms at Stanford and Berkeley - the parents of those precious spawn would never stand for it - so the cops drop into East Palo Alto and West Berkeley to pick up a paddy-wagon full of black/brown folks doing the same thing as the college kids but without the protection privilege allows.
2. Ensures that alcohol related diseases and profits continue to grow.
Last edited by bad hammy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bad hammy wrote:I'm not sure how to work with the idea that using all of these substances is indicative of my failure in life.
Why would you even entertain such a notion? You obviously CAN balance your 'urges' with your greater responsibilities. Many other people, like you, can do that also. I'm not the least concerned with people like you. Similarly, I am not concerned with all the responsible drivers would could exceed the speed limit and drive 100% safely at all times. But . . . without speed limits and other societal restraints, my and my loved ones' lives would be put in peril by the many irresponsible people, who can not balance their lives. Punishing them AFTER they've hurt my family is too late.
It's a matter of where to draw the line. I prefer it drawn on the 'safe side', i.e., better safe than sorry. Others esteem their personal 'rights' so highly, they're willing to trust others to be responsible (to some degree). I do not. I served my 20 years in the military, 'protecting' our rights, but that does not extend to the 'right' to abuse drugs and affect the lives of others.
To summarize, you do your thing in the privacy of your home and do not affect me and mine, and we have nothing to argue about. It's like the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What you do that does not affect others at all, you are more than welcome to engage in. If I thought everyone could do that, I'd picket the White House to decriminalize EVERYTHING, but I have no such faith.
You mentioned "peripheral neuropathy to exceedingly rare such as Marchiafava-Bignami syndrome". I've been Dxd with, among other things, peripheral neuropathy which is a 24/7 'experience'. And Type II Diabetes, currently managed by diet. No alch for 38 yrs, and relatively little (for young adult) prior. Ok - that is enough personal info (maybe too much)
Been to neurologist(s) and podiatrist and gen med - they all shrug their shoulders when ask about Tx and whats the general clinical course. If I live as long as lonewolf I have 20 yrs or so. Can you give me any clue or direction - I've researched somewhat on internet.
You can put this on my bill.
Yes, peripheral neuropathy is the most common complication of chronic alcoholism and I said so in my post .
I would gladly try to assist you, but need a lot more info. Let's take this offline, PM me. The first few of my questions are. 1. What is supposed to be cause of your PN? Type II diabetes is not nearly as common a cause as type I. 2. What symptoms do you have?
bad hammy wrote:I'm not sure how to work with the idea that using all of these substances is indicative of my failure in life.
Why would you even entertain such a notion? You obviously CAN balance your 'urges' with your greater responsibilities. Many other people, like you, can do that also. I'm not the least concerned with people like you. Similarly, I am not concerned with all the responsible drivers would could exceed the speed limit and drive 100% safely at all times. But . . . without speed limits and other societal restraints, my and my loved ones' lives would be put in peril by the many irresponsible people, who can not balance their lives. Punishing them AFTER they've hurt my family is too late.
It's a matter of where to draw the line. I prefer it drawn on the 'safe side', i.e., better safe than sorry. Others esteem their personal 'rights' so highly, they're willing to trust others to be responsible (to some degree). I do not. I served my 20 years in the military, 'protecting' our rights, but that does not extend to the 'right' to abuse drugs and affect the lives of others.
To summarize, you do your thing in the privacy of your home and do not affect me and mine, and we have nothing to argue about. It's like the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What you do that does not affect others at all, you are more than welcome to engage in. If I thought everyone could do that, I'd picket the White House to decriminalize EVERYTHING, but I have no such faith.
Marlow, you've not addressed my assertion that in many cases recreational drugs can have a positive effect on all of society
Last edited by mump boy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mump boy wrote:Marlow, you've addressed my assertion that in many cases recreational drugs can have a positive effect on all of society
Indeed I have. The Pursuit of Happiness is high on my list of rights. But . . . your pursuit MUST not infringe others' pursuits. That's where the problem lies. Go do whatever you want to do, as long as others are not affected, but that is much easier said than done (Donne said it nicely: "No man is an island.") .
mump boy wrote:Marlow, you've addressed my assertion that in many cases recreational drugs can have a positive effect on all of society
Indeed I have. The Pursuit of Happiness is high on my list of rights. But . . . your pursuit MUST not infringe others' pursuits. That's where the problem lies. Go do whatever you want to do, as long as others are not affected, but that is much easier said than done (Donne said it nicely: "No man is an island.") .
I made reference to circumstances in which recreational drug use has had an positive effect on those surrounding it. You have not responded to this at all.
mump boy wrote:I made reference to circumstances in which recreational drug use has had an positive effect on those surrounding it. You have not responded to this at all.
Since recreational drug use is beyond my control, I am very pleased that it has had a positive effect on some people. I'm sure you understand that even the relatively innocuous use of cannabis has ruined others' lives, and I'm not talking about the legal consequences.
The slowed reflexes and lowering of inhibitions especially concerns me. When people drive under the influence, because they do not think they are under the influence, they tend to cause accidents, sometimes fatal ones.
mump boy wrote:I made reference to circumstances in which recreational drug use has had an positive effect on those surrounding it. You have not responded to this at all.
You seem to be arguing that ecstasy is better than alcohol, not that criminalization is better than decriminalization, which is Marlow's point.
As a health professional and as one who worked for several years in a huge state psychiatric institution (where the chief of psychiatry and others strongly believed that the disproportionate number of young adults in the institution was primarily due to their abuse of recreational drugs and the harmful effect on brain neurotransmitters that the chronic drug use caused), I'm inclined to agree with most of what Marlow has stated in this discussion.
I most certain would argue that Ecstasy is better than alcohol (or horse riding !!), as would the UK top Gov advisor on the issue who got sacked for telling the truth
I was specifically commenting on Marlow's preposterous sweeping statement that drugs 'enable people to hurt others' you might as well make sex, lying or speaking illegal
I'm not even arguing that drug taking should be legal just that ill informed knee jerk reactions are what got us into this mess in the first place. There is no real attempt to have a 'War on Drugs' just one for politicians to look tough without doing anything at all to combat drug use (and the repercussions in both crime and ruined lives) in any meaningful way.
A real 'War on Drugs' would mean honesty, education & treatment not scaremongering and incarceration. The truth is that responsible use Cannabis, Ecstacy or even Cocaine is less harmful to individuals or society than alcohol or cigarette consumption and making ill informed generalisations does nothing to have a sensible debate on the subject and it is sensible debate that is most lacking.
Blues wrote:As a health professional and as one who worked for several years in a huge state psychiatric institution (where the chief of psychiatry and others strongly believed that the disproportionate number of young adults in the institution was primarily due to their abuse of recreational drugs and the harmful effect on brain neurotransmitters that the chronic drug use caused), I'm inclined to agree with most of what Marlow has stated in this discussion.
It's easy to skewer Marlow, but in this case, I lean more his way too. Let the "libertarians" and the "anarchists" nit-pick his words, I put more faith in his observations from teaching and coaching teenagers for the last 100 years (teenagers coming from the best of homes, mind you) than from some of the posters.
Blues wrote:As a health professional and as one who worked for several years in a huge state psychiatric institution (where the chief of psychiatry and others strongly believed that the disproportionate number of young adults in the institution was primarily due to their abuse of recreational drugs and the harmful effect on brain neurotransmitters that the chronic drug use caused), I'm inclined to agree with most of what Marlow has stated in this discussion.
It's easy to skewer Marlow, but in this case, I lean more his way too. Let the "libertarians" and the "anarchists" nit-pick his words, I put more faith in his observations from teaching and coaching teenagers for the last 100 years (teenagers coming from the best of homes, mind you) than from some of the posters.
How is this for "nit-picking his words"? Marlow maintains that the state should decide what is good for me (and you). Yes or no?
Blues wrote:As a health professional and as one who worked for several years in a huge state psychiatric institution (where the chief of psychiatry and others strongly believed that the disproportionate number of young adults in the institution was primarily due to their abuse of recreational drugs and the harmful effect on brain neurotransmitters that the chronic drug use caused), I'm inclined to agree with most of what Marlow has stated in this discussion.
It's easy to skewer Marlow, but in this case, I lean more his way too. Let the "libertarians" and the "anarchists" nit-pick his words, I put more faith in his observations from teaching and coaching teenagers for the last 100 years (teenagers coming from the best of homes, mind you) than from some of the posters.
How is this for "nit-picking his words"? Marlow maintains that the state should decide what is good for me (and you). Yes or no?
In a word: yes. In many more: It's somewhat complicated but once you organize (a community, tribe, village, people, state) you've ceased to be disparate interests hell-bent on satisfying your id at the expense of all else. (I know that you're not saying that; I don't want to seem like I'm oversimplyifying your views)
I want to say I believe in self-determination, the prime directive and sovereign over step and self but ...that's utopic (remember, that word, Pego? you use it alot during the PED debates) ... you just can't let people do whatever they want. Or you can, but you there won't be enough popcorn for those who want to sit back and watch the carnage. Who gets to tell everyone else what to do? Hopefully, me. Hopefully, me. Because I sure don't want anyone telling me what to do. And, if others say the opposite, it's only because they're wrong and I'm not. (purposely circular ...)
preston wrote:satisfying your id at the expense of all else
This is where Marlow and you miss the entire point. Bad Hammy and I do not want to "satisfy our id at expense of all (or anybody) else". We want to enjoy a little buzz. Not stealing, not harming anybody. From one side of his mouth, Marlow says that is fine (see his response to Hammy), from the other side he wants to destroy/ban it (see some of his numerous posts above, where he states it unequivocally.
Pego wrote:1. Huh? Society's consensus what I should eat, drink or inhale? That consensus? That is what we are talking about here, is it not? 2. Oh, yes. Are you suggesting that all laws are based on the consensus of society?
1. I'm talking about a line being drawn that says what you can and can't do across the complete spectrum of societal behaviors. Drugs are just one facet. 2. Yup, either the consensus of the group or the individual(s) the group has chosen to represent them (in a democratic republic). The government may NOT represent them well, but that is nothing new, and as Thomas Jefferson suggests, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government." Be my guest.
Pego wrote:This is where Marlow and you miss the entire point.
Pego, you know full well that I do not miss your point at all. I just disagree with your position . . . there's a big difference, and civil discourse dictates that we can agree to disagree without disparaging our opponents (who may well be our friends).
Pego wrote:This is where Marlow and you miss the entire point.
Pego, you know full well that I do not miss your point at all. I just disagree with your position . . . there's a big difference, and civil discourse dictates that we can agree to disagree without disparaging our opponents (who may well be our friends).
Yes, obviously we can disagree and still be friends, that never crossed my mind.
Now, go back and read my entire post that you removed the first sentence from. Which one of those two positions do you advocate? You clearly stated both and cannot have both of them. You are now a Universe's Absolute Dictator. Will you let Hammy have his wine and pot and me some alcohol or you are burning/banning them? Your choice, but you have to make it.
preston wrote:satisfying your id at the expense of all else
This is where Marlow and you miss the entire point. Bad Hammy and I do not want to "satisfy our id at expense of all (or anybody) else". We want to enjoy a little buzz. Not stealing, not harming anybody. From one side of his mouth, Marlow says that is fine (see his response to Hammy), from the other side he wants to destroy/ban it (see some of his numerous posts above, where he states it unequivocally.
Pego, I do see your point. I also know that the reality (remember that thing, you invoke it all the time) is that for every bad hammy there is a human train wreck. I know that addiction won't happen to everyone; only addicts get addicted, some people will never get addicted. I know that some recreational drug use is used for that purpose: recreational use. But, the biggest factor that YOU miss when you bring statistics in from other countries is that the USA is "freer", in a lot if not all instances than the countries you list. The culture of the USA is different and it is my opinion that a freer stance on drug use would incur more problems. I know some seriously functional adults who are NOT recreational in their use of alcohol and weed; they are daily users - some might say abusers - but they are ambitious, responsible and are extremely law-abiding (aside from their "illegal" consumption).
The difference between Marlow and me is that, well, I just don't care THAT much. Even though I agree with his view on outcomes, even though no one wants to be told what to do, I do recognize that the slow, undeveloped, baby antelope doesn't always make it home after the unfortunate chase from the waterhole. That's reality. It's a rough world out there and if we want community then it has a responsibility to protect (the herd circles the young/weak); or, we can just do the wild west thing. It's either/OR; but, the ones who try to rigidly, and erroneously, inject political buzz words like "nanny state" into the issue (read: "jazzcyclist" ) are not really asking for the "OR", anarchy, either. Someone always gets to tell someone else what to do; something at least one person had NO INTENTION of doing if not for the rules. There will always be rules that human being will NEVER follow. Not because they're too restrictive, but for no other reason than they want to do what they want to do when they want to do it.
)
.