Seriously, the lack of respect mostly ties into people who have no joy in life other than artificially stimulating their bodies into releasing euphoria inducing chemicals. The act of taking a drug itself isn't inherently wrong or worthy if disrespect. It's when you see the kind of person who drowns their sorrows in ethanol that the disrespect comes into play. Every day I see people take one last cigarette before getting on the smoke-free train, then they run off the train to smoke another one once the doors open. That's a pretty pathetic human being right there.
Seriously, the lack of respect mostly ties into people who have no joy in life other than artificially stimulating their bodies into releasing euphoria inducing chemicals.
That pretty-much sums it up. Occasional drink? Cool. Wino? Not cool. Smoke a bowl one weekend? Cool. Dwayne? Not cool.
If it affects your life negatively or becomes an addiction, it's not cool. That's an AND, not an OR.
Every day I see people take one last look at their feeds before getting on the Internet-free train, then they run off the train to check their feeds again once the doors open. That's a pretty pathetic human being right there.
Seriously, the lack of respect mostly ties into people who have no joy in life other than artificially stimulating their bodies into releasing euphoria inducing chemicals. The act of taking a drug itself isn't inherently wrong or worthy if disrespect. It's when you see the kind of person who drowns their sorrows in ethanol that the disrespect comes into play. Every day I see people take one last cigarette before getting on the smoke-free train, then they run off the train to smoke another one once the doors open. That's a pretty pathetic human being right there.
I would extend that to anything. If a person can only derive joy from a single action, and pursues it with all the dedication of a junkie looking for his next fix, I would say that's every bit as bad as a chemical addiction.
I would extend that to anything. If a person can only derive joy from a single action, and pursues it with all the dedication of a junkie looking for his next fix, I would say that's every bit as bad as a chemical addiction.
I don't necessarily agree with this. What if a person is just so excited about volunteering for charitable organizations? Volunteering ends up being what they spend most of their waking hours doing, it comes to define them as a person, and they derive pretty much all their joy from it. Well, that's something I think anyone can respect.
Single-mindedness, while not terrific, is not the problem. It's not how many things you do, or enjoy doing. It's all about what those things are, and why you enjoy them. Is this subjective? Absolutely. It's up to each person to decide on the distribution of the respect they have to offer. I'm just telling you how I distribute mine.
I don't necessarily agree with this. What if a person is just so excited about volunteering for charitable organizations? Volunteering ends up being what they spend most of their waking hours doing, it comes to define them as a person, and they derive pretty much all their joy from it. Well, that's something I think anyone can respect.
Single-mindedness, while not terrific, is not the problem. It's not how many things you do, or enjoy doing. It's all about what those things are, and why you enjoy them. Is this subjective? Absolutely. It's up to each person to decide on the distribution of the respect they have to offer. I'm just telling you how I distribute mine.
I have to fundamentally disagree with you here. Also, you seem to disagree with yourself.
The act of taking a drug itself isn't inherently wrong or worthy if disrespect. It's when you see the kind of person who drowns their sorrows in ethanol that the disrespect comes into play.
You state that it's the not action that is the problem, it's the behavior. The mentally maladjusted person who seeks not to get help for their behavior but to obsess over an action or task. However, you later state that you have no problem against people who volunteer to fix their mental issues. Just because they are doing an action which helps others doesn't mean they aren't perusing an addictive behavior. There have been numerous studies that show that altruistic behaviors raise your serotonin levels. You make fun of people who pray to feel good, yet applaud those who "help others" because you think they have some moral imperative. I'm sorry, but I don't respect people just because of their altruistic behavior, these people are more greedy than CEO's. There is nothing moral about helping others, it makes people feel good. This is why people give small amounts to many charities. Giving a dollar or two to lots of charities gets nothing done, it just makes you feel good. Instead people should just give tons of money to the top issues and stop buying those fucking "support the troops" ribbons.
Or look at people who obsessively work out because it feels good, exercise increases dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Do you respect these people just because the act they perform to get their fix is more socially acceptable?
It sounds like you have a grudge against any sort of substance which can be taken to alter your brain, not the addictive behavior, out of some moral imperative. This sort of arrogance is not something I can respect.
You make fun of people who pray to feel good, yet applaud those who "help others" because you think they have some moral imperative. I'm sorry, but I don't respect people just because of their altruistic behavior, these people are more greedy than CEO's.
I can't disagree with this strongly enough. Motivation aside, someone who does a good thing for a bad reason still did a good thing. Someone who does bad things, regardless of their reasons, is still doing bad things.
So, someone who turns their problems into altruistic action is doing good, and that's fine. A productive use of those problems for the benefit of others is great!
Someone who uses substances or other means that do not help or indeed harm, however, is simply trying to escape and certainly isn't nearly as worthy of respect.
It sounds like you have a grudge against any sort of substance which can be taken to alter your brain, not the addictive behavior, out of some moral imperative. This sort of arrogance is not something I can respect.
Altering the brain temporarily for entertainment, or altering it positively, is fine. Altering the brain to the detriment of its abilities on a regular basis is pathetic. Big difference.
Do whatever you want to yourself. Harm others, and we'll stop you. Harm yourself, and we'll try to convince you not to, but we won't stop you, nor will we be sympathetic when you are harmed or respect you in any way. I don't see any inconsistency there.
So, someone who turns their problems into altruistic action is doing good, and that's fine. A productive use of those problems for the benefit of others is great!
You know what, you are right. I just have an issue with all the girl scout/car ribbon society that has seemed to have sprung up recently. People need to learn what real volunteering means.
Altering the brain temporarily for entertainment, or altering it positively, is fine. Altering the brain to the detriment of its abilities on a regular basis is pathetic. Big difference.
Just as long as people don't lump them together. I don't smoke pot and I probably drink less than Rym, it's just that people like to say all drug or alcohol use is bad.
Besides, why do we focus so much on substances like alcohol and marijuana when the two leading causes of death in America are Heart Disease and Cancer. Perhaps we should try focusing on getting people to care about their diet and learn how to eat healthy. Look at the CDC's list of deaths in America: Heart disease: 652,486 Cancer: 553,888 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,074 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 121,987 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 112,012 Diabetes: 73,138
Why aren't we making foods high in trans and saturated fat illegal? It seems they are the most deadly substances in the market today. I know New York recently made trans fat illegal, but should the rest of the country follow suit? If you believe we should not and think we should still keep marijuana illegal, how can you justify your answer?
Why aren't we making foods high in trans and saturated fat illegal?
As far as trans fat goes, your argument stands. For saturated fat, however, we run into some issues. For example, butter is pretty much just saturated fat. Are you really suggesting we outlaw butter? Also, butter has been around a lot longer than the heart disease and obesity epidemic.
When you look at substances, and they harm they can do to a person, it really is all about amounts. A very small amount of cyanide can kill you. A very large amount of water can kill you. You have to draw some sort of line on which substances should be banned, which should be regulated, and which should be set free.
When it comes to something like saturated fat, I think it is much like water. It's not dangerous unless you take way too much of it, and it has a benefit of making very tasty food. I don't think it should be regulated.
When it comes to something like trans fat, you can see that even in small amounts, it can be harmful. It also appears to provide no nutritional benefits or taste benefits as a food. Why make it legal in food? No reason. Just get rid of it.
Marijuana has show to have positive and negative effects. As far as something you smoke or eat, it seems that the THC is the source of pretty much all the positive, and some of the negative effects. I see no reason that anyone should smoke the plant for positive effects because you could simply eat the THC pills and get the same thing without lung damage from smoke. However, the plant itself does have other uses besides being a drug. To sum it up, I think it needs to be more legal than it is now, but regulation is still in order.
When it comes to something like saturated fat, I think it is much like water. It's not dangerous unless you take way too much of it, and it has a benefit of making very tasty food. I don't think it should be regulated.
I'm not saying that we should completely outlaw saturated fat, it has some benefits, but it also does have a significant effect on cholesterol. It raises both your LDL (Bad Cholesterol) and HDL (Good Cholesterol) and has a negative net effect. All scientific studies today have a consensus that we should limit our saturated fat intake as it does have an affect to our health, in smaller doses than you think. Regulating it would probably raise overall health in the population, especially America where people take in way more saturated fat than they should be. It's not completely bad, but it's not completely good either.
Wow, I got bashed! That doesn't happen here very often.
Here's a couple of things. One, I said I was glad it is illegal. I'm angry at my family members who waste their lives. I understand the arguments for legalization and being libertarian about most things, it's something that I still challenge. However, if it were legal, more people would use it. We don't need anymore high-ons than we already have.
Following China's defeat in the Second Opium War in 1858, China was forced to legalize opium and began massive domestic production. Importation of opium peaked in 1879 at 6,700 tons, and by 1906 China was producing 85% of the world's opium, some 35,000 tons, and 27% of its adult male population was addicted - 13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium yearly.[39] From 1880 to the beginning of the Communist era the British attempted to discourage the use of opium in China, but this effectively promoted the use of morphine, heroin, and cocaine, further exacerbating the problem of addiction.[40]
While pot isn't opium, legalization promotes use. We probably already have 27% of Americans who smoke weed at least every now and then. What if that number were 80% and the daily users went to 30% or more? Unemployment and malaise would rise proportionally.
We probably already have 27% of Americans who smoke weed at least every now and then.
Uncited statistic is uncited. Also, why would that number suddenly jump to 80%. You just said that 27% of China was addicted to something that is ridiculously physically addictive.
No, I said casual could jump to 80% and daily users could jump to Chinese opium heyday levels. My points are that legalization would increase the number of daily users and that that would be bad for very bad for this country.
What we need is a drug that provides euphoria but does not impair ability or motivation.
Ah, I need to read that book. I borrowed it from the school library, but kept forgetting to read it. Then they got mad at me for keeping it for way too long.
What we need is a drug that provides euphoria but does not impair ability or motivation.
We have such a drug. It's called living a meaningful and satisfying life. The rest are just cheap substitutes. Unfortunately, access is quite restricted at the moment, which probably has something to do with the dangerous overpopularity of its alternatives.
But you might need some Prozac while you're at it. Mr. Vonnegut, he's not always, shall we say, upbeat?
I think you miss the point of his books. He always showed how completely destitute characters were so he could in some small way redeem them. Remember, this is the man who said, "Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt."
I just finishedGalapagosand it was pretty weak as far as Vonnegut works come. Read the others.
Oh, come on! A beheaded ghost watches the only humans on Earth devolve into intelligent otters for millions of years after the nuclear holocaust. It's priceless!
I just finishedGalapagosand it was pretty weak as far as Vonnegut works come. Read the others.
Oh, come on! A beheaded ghost watches the only humans on Earth devolve into intelligent otters for millions of years after the nuclear holocaust. It's priceless!If the meta-plot the whole book, it'd be awesome. Unfortunately, most of the book is filled with that "Nature Cruise of the Century" story.
From what I have read and heard from people who have experience with such things, Isn't the pot these days many times stronger then the pot from the 60's because of advances in cultivation.
From what I have read and heard from people who have experience with such things, Isn't the pot these days many times stronger then the pot from the 60's because of advances in cultivation.
Comments
If it affects your life negatively or becomes an addiction, it's not cool. That's an AND, not an OR. Corrected. (Of course, I kid.)
Single-mindedness, while not terrific, is not the problem. It's not how many things you do, or enjoy doing. It's all about what those things are, and why you enjoy them. Is this subjective? Absolutely. It's up to each person to decide on the distribution of the respect they have to offer. I'm just telling you how I distribute mine.
Or look at people who obsessively work out because it feels good, exercise increases dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Do you respect these people just because the act they perform to get their fix is more socially acceptable?
It sounds like you have a grudge against any sort of substance which can be taken to alter your brain, not the addictive behavior, out of some moral imperative. This sort of arrogance is not something I can respect.
So, someone who turns their problems into altruistic action is doing good, and that's fine. A productive use of those problems for the benefit of others is great!
Someone who uses substances or other means that do not help or indeed harm, however, is simply trying to escape and certainly isn't nearly as worthy of respect. Altering the brain temporarily for entertainment, or altering it positively, is fine. Altering the brain to the detriment of its abilities on a regular basis is pathetic. Big difference.
Do whatever you want to yourself. Harm others, and we'll stop you. Harm yourself, and we'll try to convince you not to, but we won't stop you, nor will we be sympathetic when you are harmed or respect you in any way. I don't see any inconsistency there.
Besides, why do we focus so much on substances like alcohol and marijuana when the two leading causes of death in America are Heart Disease and Cancer. Perhaps we should try focusing on getting people to care about their diet and learn how to eat healthy. Look at the CDC's list of deaths in America:
Heart disease: 652,486
Cancer: 553,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,074
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 121,987
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 112,012
Diabetes: 73,138
Why aren't we making foods high in trans and saturated fat illegal? It seems they are the most deadly substances in the market today. I know New York recently made trans fat illegal, but should the rest of the country follow suit? If you believe we should not and think we should still keep marijuana illegal, how can you justify your answer?
When you look at substances, and they harm they can do to a person, it really is all about amounts. A very small amount of cyanide can kill you. A very large amount of water can kill you. You have to draw some sort of line on which substances should be banned, which should be regulated, and which should be set free.
When it comes to something like saturated fat, I think it is much like water. It's not dangerous unless you take way too much of it, and it has a benefit of making very tasty food. I don't think it should be regulated.
When it comes to something like trans fat, you can see that even in small amounts, it can be harmful. It also appears to provide no nutritional benefits or taste benefits as a food. Why make it legal in food? No reason. Just get rid of it.
Marijuana has show to have positive and negative effects. As far as something you smoke or eat, it seems that the THC is the source of pretty much all the positive, and some of the negative effects. I see no reason that anyone should smoke the plant for positive effects because you could simply eat the THC pills and get the same thing without lung damage from smoke. However, the plant itself does have other uses besides being a drug. To sum it up, I think it needs to be more legal than it is now, but regulation is still in order.
Here's a couple of things. One, I said I was glad it is illegal. I'm angry at my family members who waste their lives. I understand the arguments for legalization and being libertarian about most things, it's something that I still challenge. However, if it were legal, more people would use it. We don't need anymore high-ons than we already have.
Two, look at what happened with China and opium:
Following China's defeat in the Second Opium War in 1858, China was forced to legalize opium and began massive domestic production. Importation of opium peaked in 1879 at 6,700 tons, and by 1906 China was producing 85% of the world's opium, some 35,000 tons, and 27% of its adult male population was addicted - 13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium yearly.[39] From 1880 to the beginning of the Communist era the British attempted to discourage the use of opium in China, but this effectively promoted the use of morphine, heroin, and cocaine, further exacerbating the problem of addiction.[40]
While pot isn't opium, legalization promotes use. We probably already have 27% of Americans who smoke weed at least every now and then. What if that number were 80% and the daily users went to 30% or more? Unemployment and malaise would rise proportionally.
Alcohol is the compromise. Pot is over the line.
What we need is a drug that provides euphoria but does not impair ability or motivation.
Not saying they're bad, but i kind of thought they were... unnecessary.
Also I like how this is the Vonnegut thread now.