Election results

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:Well I can tell you that smoking pot cant be any healthier than smoking cigarettes. I have yet to see a filter with one of these things. I think that it will kill you just as efficiently as cigarettes do, especially since marijuana is rarely smoked pure but "stretched" with tabacco. So the whole notion is bogus invented by some potsmokers that want to legitimize their hobby.
No. It pot anti-tumor properties. In fact smoking it with tobacco probably reduces the tobacco hazard.

Really. You should study the subject before passing off you guesses as information.

Most of what people "know" about drug use just ain't so.

And it is not a "hobby". It is used for pain relief:

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrations ... ws0217.htm

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ystem.html

Note the date on the last url. The info has been out there for over two years and you have not studied it.

The first url since 2002.

I'm surprised a person of your obvious intellect and interest has never run into the above material.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Ok, genetics do have a saying in addiction, no question about it. I am the first to give credit to genetics for a lot of things. However I do not think that I like you attitude about that fact. It seems to me that you are saying "drugs are not bad, people are" which almost sounds like "guns dont kill people, people kill people". Both I can not agree with...

Ok, lets see what we can agree on, shall we?
Do you agree that heroin and cocain kill people or at least prevent them from reaching their ful potential?
Do you agree that some people get addicted to these drugs and can not get away from them without costy treatment?
Do you agree that these people should be treated for their addiction?
Do you agree that it is wrong that some scum makes money of these people?
Do you agree that we should do our best to protect especially teenagers and youths from becoming addicted to these drugs?
Or do you even want to argue about these very basic questions?

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Tools of racial oppression, what are you smoking? We do not have any racial opression here and we do have the same issues, so that is a pile of dung, sorry.


I'm going to post the url again since you obviously did not read it. Read it and get back to me.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

This is a transcript of a lecture given to judges in America. A similar lecture was given to the FBI. The person giving the lecture is a legit historian. He also wrote a book.

There is no contradictory evidence that I have seen. If you have some post a link. I'd be interested.

BTW the drug laws in Europe were developed at the behest of the USA. Look up the history of "The Single Convention On Narcotics".

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Con ... otic_Drugs

long url

Really dood. It would be good if you had some education in the subject.

And so you have MDs in the family? Perhaps Europe is not as advanced in its understanding of drugs as American practitioners. Pity.

The first thing you need to ask your expert MDs is what they know about the amygdala and the CB1 receptor. If they are ignorant of those two points I wouldn't trust what they "know". Get back to me after you have done a check. Start the check with this question "what is the role of the amygdala in drug addiction?" If they can't answer that question they are as ignorant as you are.

Normally I wouldn't be so harsh on some one who is trying to learn. However, your failure to read the materials provided indicates an unwillingness to study. Shame on you. It is not a very scientific attitude.

RTFM and then get back to me.

Let me add that what 95% to 99% of people know about addiction is pure superstition.

You wouldn't presume to tell me how a BFR might work without studying physics and math. Yet you presume to tell me how addiction works without studying the latest materials on the subject. Shame on you.

You are not arguing in good faith. However, it is good of you to be willing to parade your ignorance. You provide an excellent example of how science ought not be done.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:Ok, genetics do have a saying in addiction, no question about it. I am the first to give credit to genetics for a lot of things. However I do not think that I like you attitude about that fact. It seems to me that you are saying "drugs are not bad, people are" which almost sounds like "guns dont kill people, people kill people". Both I can not agree with...

Ok, lets see what we can agree on, shall we?
Do you agree that heroin and cocain kill people or at least prevent them from reaching their ful potential?
Do you agree that some people get addicted to these drugs and can not get away from them without costy treatment?
Do you agree that these people should be treated for their addiction?
Do you agree that it is wrong that some scum makes money of these people?
Do you agree that we should do our best to protect especially teenagers and youths from becoming addicted to these drugs?
Or do you even want to argue about these very basic questions?
You start from the attitude that drugs are bad when in fact they are merely medicine for a condition that is dependent on genetics and initiated by trauma.

Do you mean to tell me that treating victims of trauma who have long term problems is a bad idea? The state of medicine in Europe has sunk abysmally low. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should be ashamed of the state of medicine in Europe.

The scum making money is purely the result of prohibition. We had a lot of scum making money off alcohol here in America until we figured out what to do. Really dood. Read the material I have provided and get a clue.

What about the children? If they need drugs you would deny them? How compassionate. It is no wonder that without an American presence you periodically go to war with each other. Some times I think we should have just left you guys to the tender mercies of the Germans.

I will be glad to argue the science. You ain't got none. You are running on emotion. Which reminds me. You might want to look up the connection between emotion and the amygdala. A very interesting subject.

BTW if you believe the current superstition about drugs your attitude is entirely understandable. Science it is not.

Chronic pot smokers have a cannibinoid deficiency. People who take heroin have an endorphin deficiency.

So would you deny folks with an insulin deficiency insulin? You know they sure look like addicts to me. Always taking drugs and all.

Any way. I'm not going to respond to you further until you have done some study. Get back to me with a list of the urls I have provided that you have read and I will be glad to discuss. It is useless having a discussion of the science with the ignorant.

BTW it is amazing how a discussion of the nature of drugs brings out the totally uninformed. And the more uninformed the more rabid. It is like I am attacking your religion or something. And no bigotry in Europe? That is a laugh. You are obviously bigoted against drug users. Well I guess since hating Jews is off limits you have to have something. Why not hate Saturn? Or the Andromeda Galaxy and relieve other humans of your hate.

Me? I hate ignorance. But it is occasionally curable. We shall see if that is true in your case.

In the last 4 years of discussing this subject I have never been beaten with information. I am tres formidable when it comes to this subject. Usually the folks just determined to keep their hate and superstition give up. I'm successful with about 1/2 the people I come in contact with. The rest just sulk off. Why? Well learning on subjects that trigger emotion ends for most at about age 20 or 25. You may be too old to change your mind. Pity.

Stick to physics. A much less emotional subject for most.

And you know what? I'm thinking of promoting a withdrawal of all American troops from Europe and letting the Russians have at you. Or let you have at each other. If your attitude is typical it would be what you deserve. Fortunately that would not be in America's interest so you are safe for now. But mind, our interests could change. Heh.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Simon, enough with the logic and facts, some people need to be reached in other ways.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Roger wrote:Simon, enough with the logic and facts, some people need to be reached in other ways.
Any suggestions?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Scupperer
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Post by Scupperer »

MSimon wrote:
Roger wrote:Simon, enough with the logic and facts, some people need to be reached in other ways.
Any suggestions?
Humor?

Image
Perrin Ehlinger

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

Some people have way too much fun!
:D

I had a prof once who used to say "you can lead students to the library, but you can't make them read." Not much else you can do.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Roger wrote:Simon, enough with the logic and facts, some people need to be reached in other ways.

You got that right! I've found that facts, logic and reason NEVER work. The only thing that works is raw emotion and threatening mobs!

:)


David

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Hey, take it easy on the guy. You aren't going to convince him by lambasting him.

MSimon, I won't argue one way or another that addiction can or cannot be cured socially. Perhaps it can't through twelve step programs, I don't know. My arguments about social supports are generally more about prevention than they are about curing. I think that early intervention, before the physiognomical damage is done, is key to lowering addiction rates. And that's where I think you can make inroads. It's certainly a better way of attempting prevention than is trying to shut off the supply.

In any case, our conclusion is the same. Legalization works because whether or not you can cure these things, the situation is better without criminalization. Generally less crime. If you want to look it in purely libertarian terms, let people damage themselves, and only then worry about wether or not they'll do damage to others. And, since the drugs in question generally do not make a person dangerous to others, unless we force them into criminal activity to support their habit, what's the danger?

If it's not criminalized, drugs are relatively cheap, and, again, we can socialize these individuals. That's part of my point, too. Even if you can't successfully treat an addiction through socialization alone, you can mitigate the effects of ostracization and such so that the addict has an easier time trying to cope.

Potential? Potential is the most loaded term in the world. It's a completely subjective thing. If, in fact, somebody has chosen to do a wrong thing, did they really have the potential to do the right thing? I'm not arguing determinism here, but there were reasons why the person in question made their decision. Sure, man is an intelligent beast, but he's also flawwed in many ways. If you look only at a person's virtues, sure, you're bound to see "potential." But you have to look at the whole person to understand them.

Einstein said that he wasn't really particularly smart, but that his virtue was that he just thought things through more completely than most people (almost obsessively). We all have the "potential" of Einstein or Ghandi, if you look solely at our virtues. But if you look at the whole person, how many of us have the complete package of virtues that allow us to be such powerful contributors to society? Or, heck, the obsessions that allow such contributions?

That's not to say we shouldn't try to give people the chance to allow their virtues to come through, and help them as much as possible. But taking away the availability of drugs isn't going to do that. If you believe in freewill, then the person has the choice to go down the road to productivity or to demolishing their "potential." And you can't legislate people living up to their potential. You can only encourage them by giving them a place in society. In psychological terms, rewards for acting the way we want them to act.

Look at any behavioral study. Randomly scheduled positive reinforcement is, by far, the strongest method of creating a behavior in a freewilled individual (forcing people to do things through physical threat of death works better, but is generally not acceptable behavior itself). It's because people don't have such reward structures in their lives that they have to turn to something else.


Here's a fascinating fact, to me at least. I've often said that what passes for "social drinking" here in the state of Wisconsin is what would constitute alcoholism anywhere else in the world. I mean, there is no such thing here as a restaraunt without a bar. When I first left the state as a child, I was astonished to find cities in which there wasn't a bar on every corner. As a teetotaller myself, people look at me funny when I don't order alcohol with dinner.

I once had a waiter who, when I ordered lemonade, once said, "Do you want anything IN that lemonade?"

Nearlly everybody here drinks regularly (I'm the exception that proves the rule). Many drink every night. Most at least several times a week. And they don't drink just one beer, either. We watch TV, and laugh when somebody says, "Ooh, I've had three beers, I'm getting sloshed." Takes at least a six-pack to get the average Wisconsinite started. Or a couple of largish Brandy Manhattans.

And yet, I've met very, very few people who have a problem with their drinking. Oh, I know a couple who lean on it quite a bit. But these same people also manage to hold down a job, and have successful family lives. It doesn't have a negative impact on their lifestyle. Even if obviously addicted.

We DO have a problem with drunk driving in the state. I won't deny that for a moment. We're still working on that. But overall what lots of availability of alcohol has meant here is not a higher rate of problem alcoholism, but a culture where alcohol is accepted as part of life.

I'm not saying that this is good or bad. Alcohol is, to me, about the worst drug you can imagine. But what I'm saying is that you can have people enculturated in a way that allows them to deal with the substances that they use for stress relief. Even if it does lead to addiction. You just have to take away their car keys...

But that can't happen if the drugs are illegal due to a particular prejudice against them by a segment of our society. If some drugs are bad, but others are OK, there's bound to be trouble. How can you take away their car keys, if they're hiding the fact that they're drinking?

Car keys are, of course, a metaphor here. They represent what we can do after the fact to control the behavior of the addicted. And there are steps we can take to contain them so that they don't cause damage. But only if they don't have to hide the behavior.

Mike

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

My arguments about social supports are generally more about prevention than they are about curing.
We know how to prevent addiction. Eliminate bad genetics and trauma.

Got a plan?

As to convincing people: my policy is to present the information. If a person refuses to check out the information or can't be convinced I'd prefer they stop wasting my time.

BTW the drug war has turned into a real war. The hot spots right now are Afghanistan and Mexico.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... l-war.html

*
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

What I'm calling supplying social support, is what you're calling eliminating trauma. Unless you're claiming that "Trauma" is all physiological only, and not psychological at all. I think a lot of psychological trauma is preventable.

But, again, hardly matters as our conclusions are the same. Whether or not socialization helps people avoid addiction, I'm still for it on more general behavioral grounds.

Oh, as for genetics, we're working on that with Gene Therapy. And despite a cynicism of that technology that's approaching that of, say, net fusion power, advances are constantly being made. I think we'll get there, and it won't be too long.

As to your policy for convincing people, well, it's not so good. But, hey, you gotta do it like you gotta do it. In any case nobody is requiring you to argue here. If your time is being wasted, it's your own fault for participating.

On your last point, I'm not sure I agree with your rhetoric. If you want to be incendiary about it, it's much easier to point out that the "drug war" has always been a "real" war. There certainly have been a lot of casualties on both sides, throughout, and many of the effects of war. Never was there a more pointless war than this one that has created many problems, and solved none.

Mike

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Mike Holmes wrote:What I'm calling supplying social support, is what you're calling eliminating trauma. Unless you're claiming that "Trauma" is all physiological only, and not psychological at all. I think a lot of psychological trauma is preventable.

But, again, hardly matters as our conclusions are the same. Whether or not socialization helps people avoid addiction, I'm still for it on more general behavioral grounds.

Oh, as for genetics, we're working on that with Gene Therapy. And despite a cynicism of that technology that's approaching that of, say, net fusion power, advances are constantly being made. I think we'll get there, and it won't be too long.

As to your policy for convincing people, well, it's not so good. But, hey, you gotta do it like you gotta do it. In any case nobody is requiring you to argue here. If your time is being wasted, it's your own fault for participating.

On your last point, I'm not sure I agree with your rhetoric. If you want to be incendiary about it, it's much easier to point out that the "drug war" has always been a "real" war. There certainly have been a lot of casualties on both sides, throughout, and many of the effects of war. Never was there a more pointless war than this one that has created many problems, and solved none.

Mike
The #1 cause of heroin use among women is sexual abuse as children. We have been doing something about that for quite some time with minimal effect.

As to trauma of other kinds: police and emergency workers are at great risk. Soldiers too. Trauma is unavoidable. I'm sure it can be reduced some. Enough? Not so far.

Re: my last point. It is not incendiary. It is a fact. Opium is supporting the war in Afghanistan and is on the verge of causing open civil war in Mexico.

I wish I was exaggerating for effect.

Read the article. I lay it all out with facts and links.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

As to your policy for convincing people, well, it's not so good. But, hey, you gotta do it like you gotta do it. In any case nobody is requiring you to argue here. If your time is being wasted, it's your own fault for participating.
I have been engaging in these debates for a number of years. There comes a point of diminishing returns.

For those that make the drug war a religion it is generally not useful putting in the effort after a certain point. OTOH for people with an open mind I have no problem discussing the issue at great length. I often learn things. And for that I am always grateful.

My attitude? It is cheaper to let people have their medicine. More compassionate too.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I am outa here, you guys are sooo far beyond any reality, it is a joke!
People give a lot of lectures and there are a lot of studies on a lot of things. I am sure I can bring you just as many studies to the contrary.
On the medication thing: Most medication, at least here, has to be prescribed by medical doctors. That is especially true for psychofarmaca! If it is not prescribed by a medical doctor and taken exactly at the dosage the doctor prescribed, then it is abuse and not treatment.
I cant believe that people here are so ideologically infested, really. I mean it should be totally logical that drug abuse is bad, unhealthy and damages your brain. You guys are denying all the facts that have been known for ages. And I dont care what some historian said, the drug problem is not a racial problem, because if that was the case, then we would not have a drug problem here!
Anyway, do what you want, go get stoned, or fix your heroin, best give it to your children too! That way the problem will solve itself within a generation or so.

Post Reply