Talk-Polywell.org

Just to be annoying,

http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/Scie ... id=5788055

choff wrote:Just to be annoying,

http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/Scie ... id=5788055

Quite fact free. No links. No studies. Not even a survey. Fine. Now how about a doctor who actually has studied the brain, addicts, and social conditions that lead to addiction. He uses words like dopamine, serotonin, etc. in his 15 minute talk (there is a 2 minute intro).

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/the- ... -in-drugs/

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/drugImpact.htm

You can point to whatever studies you like. Drugs are a completely malevolent curse upon society and all those who don't realize this, haven't a clue because their cognitive abilities are impaired from drug use.

GIThruster wrote:http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/drugImpact.htm

You can point to whatever studies you like. Drugs are a completely malevolent curse upon society and all those who don't realize this, haven't a clue because their cognitive abilities are impaired from drug use.

Thats quite a wide brush you are painting with. Are you accusing me of being a brainless drug user because I think drug prohibition is pointless, over-dramatized/-sensationalized and generally worse for our society than the drug use it claims to be against?

From your post above I'm going to guess you do think this, in which case you are 100% incorrect. The only drugs I personally indulge in are sugar, caffeine and the endorphins from playing first-person-shooters on the computer (and I haven't had time for the last in over a year). Hell, I haven't enough had alcohol in the last two years ...

Well you are the odd man out, aren't you? I've never heard anyone promote legalizing illicit drugs who wasn't a user. Given I spent 6 years in the drug culture as a kid, and worked with drug addicts for many years, and have heard the ridiculous arguments in support of drug legalization for forty years, you ought to count yourself special.

Maybe you ought to read the statistics of what drug use does to cultures like this one, before you promote such a delusional world view? It does make it hard to take you at your word, that you're not a user.

I didn't expect you to just believe me; this is the Internet, after all.

I've known quite a few people that do drugs. Some of them have, basically, destroyed themselves while others are quite productive and if you didn't know them (or the subtle signs) wouldn't know they use illegal drugs. Most of them are somewhere in between, as with all things in life.

Those that were not doing well almost always had something else in their life that was the primary problem, with the drugs just exacerbating things. Those that continue to do well were pretty well adjusted, though I did notice that the more hardship they endured, and the more they had trouble with that hardship, the more drugs they seemed to use.

To me, this showed that the drugs weren't the problem. Adding prison and all the fun social extras from arrests just made things worse for the individuals and their families, while doing nothing helpful that I could see.

I agree that folks that use heavily, just as folks that drink heavily, need help. I do not agree that persecuting drug users helps anything in the long run.

krenshala wrote:I didn't expect you to just believe me; this is the Internet, after all.

I've known quite a few people that do drugs. Some of them have, basically, destroyed themselves while others are quite productive and if you didn't know them (or the subtle signs) wouldn't know they use illegal drugs. Most of them are somewhere in between, as with all things in life.

Those that were not doing well almost always had something else in their life that was the primary problem, with the drugs just exacerbating things. Those that continue to do well were pretty well adjusted, though I did notice that the more hardship they endured, and the more they had trouble with that hardship, the more drugs they seemed to use.

To me, this showed that the drugs weren't the problem. Adding prison and all the fun social extras from arrests just made things worse for the individuals and their families, while doing nothing helpful that I could see.

I agree that folks that use heavily, just as folks that drink heavily, need help. I do not agree that persecuting drug users helps anything in the long run.

You seem reasonable. Are you familiar with what happened to drug addiction in China between 1758 and 1905? It went from 2% addiction rate in 1785 to a 50% addiction rate by 1905. Sometimes the damage is so slow that people don't notice it creeping up on them.

I am of the opinion that China's social collapse led to an economic weakness which allowed the much smaller Japan to roll them up like an old carpet. The ensuing chaos then created a vacuum into which stepped a dictator. (Chairman Mao.)

I theorize that the legalization of certain types of addictive drugs (such as opium) will over decades lead to a societal collapse, which in turn will subsequently result in a dictator.


Can you see any holes in this theory?

krenshala wrote: To me, this showed that the drugs weren't the problem. Adding prison and all the fun social extras from arrests just made things worse for the individuals and their families, while doing nothing helpful that I could see.

A room filled with natural gas is not a "problem" until someone lights a match.

It honestly does not matter which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Whether drugs create problems or exacerbate them, they have devastating effects, that ruin more lives than almost all other social ills combined.

Can you see any holes in this theory?

No, but I can see holes in your history lesson. You failed to mention the fact that a major nation became a drug pusher, not just dealer in China during that period. The addiction levels raised due to British intervention, not lack of prohibition. This has been discussed several times now.

MSimon wrote:

choff wrote:Just to be annoying,

http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/Scie ... id=5788055

Quite fact free. No links. No studies. Not even a survey. Fine. Now how about a doctor who actually has studied the brain, addicts, and social conditions that lead to addiction. He uses words like dopamine, serotonin, etc. in his 15 minute talk (there is a 2 minute intro).

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/the- ... -in-drugs/

Actually, Dr. McGeer has a lot of cred in my town. He served in the provincial cabinet for a while, and, as he mentioned, he turned out neuroscientists for a living, from a pretty solid university.

We've had more of a legalization debate with the occupy protest in Vancouver the last few weeks. Most of the economic protesters quit after being driven off by the drug thugs.

A girl died from an OD in the tent city. When people pointed this out to the 'protesters' they responded with, "so what, people OD in the DTES all day." This response misses the point that people shouldn't be OD'ing in the first place.

The recent and preceeding lotus land lefty mayors are all talking legalization, to which our conservative prime minister told them to go stick it.

Of course it goes without saying, our recently reelected mayor also supports eliminating car traffic in the downtown core, replacing it with bike lanes. I especially hate this initiative since I have to drive and park a car for a living.

The mayor also wants people to keep chickens in the backyard. I expect that one to last till the next bird flu outbreak.

He also wants to make Vancouver the greenest city in North America, no matter how many real jobs get sacrificed to subsidize the anti-warming nonsense. But I'm sure you'd like these lefties, given their pro legalzation stance. They see the DTES as the perfect model for each and every city on the continent.

GIThruster wrote:Well you are the odd man out, aren't you? I've never heard anyone promote legalizing illicit drugs who wasn't a user.

Balderdash!

Diogenes wrote: You seem reasonable. Are you familiar with what happened to drug addiction in China between 1758 and 1905? It went from 2% addiction rate in 1785 to a 50% addiction rate by 1905. Sometimes the damage is so slow that people don't notice it creeping up on them.

It also had a foreign government specifically pushing the drugs for their own nefarious purposes. And, IIRC, they had a law AGAINST drug use that the foreign government got around with "diplomatic immunity". Apples and aardvarks.

KitemanSA wrote:

GIThruster wrote:Well you are the odd man out, aren't you? I've never heard anyone promote legalizing illicit drugs who wasn't a user.

Balderdash!

It sounds good when he says it though.

GIThruster wrote:

krenshala wrote: To me, this showed that the drugs weren't the problem. Adding prison and all the fun social extras from arrests just made things worse for the individuals and their families, while doing nothing helpful that I could see.

A room filled with natural gas is not a "problem" until someone lights a match.

It honestly does not matter which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Whether drugs create problems or exacerbate them, they have devastating effects, that ruin more lives than almost all other social ills combined.

The drugs themselve often have no significant adverse effect. The cutting poisons sold along with the unregulated drugs can do a real hatchet job on your health.

The end result is that the drug WAR has a terrible effect, the drugs typically minor.