Libertine is Dangerous.

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Diogenes wrote:
ScottL wrote:
Think for a moment if Cocaine were as legal as alcohol. Ask yourself if you would take a drink of the one, why you would feel an onus against taking a hit of the other? From what i've seen, The Coolest parties in Los Angeles pretty much always have a little blow on a table somewhere.

If it weren't illegal, I expect it would be as popular as Alcohol, but it is a relatively small segment of the population that likes to live dangerously.
Cocaine was legal in the U.S. until 1970 when it was classified as a controlled substance and yet was never as popular as alcohol. Your assumptions don't have any basis in reality. Prohibition was created to prevent African-American males from raping Caucasian women, a dubious claim, manufactured by the media from the 10s to 70s. The choice of prohibition was made based on racial prejudices and fear mongering. To be clear, Cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic. Thanks for playing the game....better luck next time and good luck in your future endevours.
You are kidding, right? When you say stuff like this it makes me think you aren't knowledgeable enough to discuss this subject. This stuff is a "not even on the radar" level of ignorance.



Cocaine was made illegal by the Harrison Narcotics act of 1914. There was a prior act called the pure food and drug act, that mandated ingredients such as cocaine had to be included on the label as well as how large of a dosage they were. This act pretty much killed the patent medicines industry because most of such concoctions used cocaine as a prime ingredient.


In 1911, the Coca Cola company was taken to courtbecause it was believed they were putting actual coca leaves (containing cocaine) into their beverages. (They actually DID put coca leaves into their product, but they claim to use a chemical process to strip out all of the cocaine.


Why are you repeating that other crap without knowing about the stuff which is true? You've got some learning to do I think.
Possession of Cocaine as a controlled substance did not happen until 1970. Consumption of the raw form Cocaine occured by way of the act you sited. The act you sited was pushed through by way of argument of the "cocaine enraged african american male' that would rape caucasian women. So while the consumption of the raw form was illegal in 1914, the availability and possession was not until 1970 and isn't your argument that when available it will cause usage booms? so availability pre-1914, post-1914, from 1914-1970, yeah availability all around.

To be clear, 1914 act was against the use and sitribution by companies and individuals unless authorized, many being grandfathered into the authorization. Still completely 100% available and easily obtainable.

It might also be noted that Cocaine causes a Psychological addiction, not a physiological addiction.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Possession of Cocaine as a controlled substance did not happen until 1970. Consumption of the raw form Cocaine occured by way of the act you sited. The act you sited was pushed through by way of argument of the "cocaine enraged african american male' that would rape caucasian women. So while the consumption of the raw form was illegal in 1914, the availability and possession was not until 1970 and isn't your argument that when available it will cause usage booms? so availability pre-1914, post-1914, from 1914-1970, yeah availability all around.
Citation?
It might also be noted that Cocaine causes a Psychological addiction, not a physiological addiction.
Completely wrong. Please cite your source.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

ladajo wrote:Why do you insist that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally?
Another strawman - where did I say that all drugs should be treated equally?

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

ladajo wrote:
CKay wrote: Alcohol *is* a recreational drug. End of.
Your technical approach is understood, and technically correct. Alcohol is a drug. So is sugar for that matter, and even aspirin.
Sugar and aspirin are not recreational drugs.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

CKay wrote:
ladajo wrote:Why do you insist that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally?
Another strawman - where did I say that all drugs should be treated equally?
Strawman - Where did you say you didn't?

BTW Sugar is very much a recreational drug for some. Either one of my kids would love to elaborate on that. It even has addicitve properties. Maybe that has to do with it sharing molecular content with Alcohol and Carbohydrate? C6-H12-O6
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

ladajo wrote:
CKay wrote:
ladajo wrote:Why do you insist that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally?
Another strawman - where did I say that all drugs should be treated equally?
Strawman - Where did you say you didn't?
Umm... you don't understand what a strawman fallacy is, do you?
BTW Sugar is very much a recreational drug for some.
No, it really isn't. It's not psychoactive - the notion of a sugar rush is a long discredited myth.
Last edited by CKay on Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Betruger
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

ladajo wrote:
CKay wrote:
ladajo wrote: One of the largest issues and dangers in drug use, is when drugs are used together with alcohol (or other drugs).
Why do you insist on this artificial separation between alcohol and 'drugs'?

Alcohol *is* a recreational drug. End of.
Your technical approach is understood, and technically correct. Alcohol is a drug. So is sugar for that matter, and even aspirin.

The difference that I choose to stick to lays with the accepted social connotation. If you have not caught that nuance from me yet, it should be clear now. To the Average Joe, Alcohol is not a drug, but Cocaine and MJ are. This is an important distinction to understand when discussing the dynamics of control mechanisms, especially those that are taken in a major social context such as society at large.

Why do you insist that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally?
Perhaps what he envisions is a world where drugs other than alcohol are equal in that it isn't beyond Average Joe to understand their influence and side effects as adequately as alcohol's. Viz. Heroine's past prevalence.

Distinguishing each drug as one-of-a-kind actor in biochemistry, and therefore drugs only being "equal" in that all of them must be comprehensively understood. Vulgar and much smaller degree instance of this appreciation being fine wine tasting or picking just the right kind of booze to fit the mood of a party - is the goal to get hammered or to maximize time spent on that buzz sweet spot?

Less vulgar and higher degree instance being the exact science of hard drugs' "reasonable" range of usefulness: what exact territory in each drug's composition and practical use yields (e.g.) what exact sensory (etc) effects.
This clinical understanding being one way to justify prohibition - if a drug has no such feasible sweet spot, if it can't be manufactured and used in a way that doesn't invariably make you jump out of windows or cause permanent non-negligible brain damage and so on, then from a regulation POV it's a compelling line to draw in the sand.

edit- oops, didn't see topic page # 4.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

ladajo wrote:
Possession of Cocaine as a controlled substance did not happen until 1970. Consumption of the raw form Cocaine occured by way of the act you sited. The act you sited was pushed through by way of argument of the "cocaine enraged african american male' that would rape caucasian women. So while the consumption of the raw form was illegal in 1914, the availability and possession was not until 1970 and isn't your argument that when available it will cause usage booms? so availability pre-1914, post-1914, from 1914-1970, yeah availability all around.
Citation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act
The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act (Ch. 1, 38 Stat. 785) was a United States federal law that regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates. The act was proposed by Representative Francis Burton Harrison of New York and was approved on December 14, 1914.[1]

"An Act To provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax on all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes." The courts interpreted this to mean that physicians could prescribe narcotics to patients in the course of normal treatment, but not for the treatment of addiction.

Although technically illegal for purposes of distribution and use, the distribution, sale and use of cocaine was still legal for registered companies and individuals.
The act said nothing about possession, just use and distribution.

1970 it was included in the Controlled Substances Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
as title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehens ... ct_of_1970
ladajo wrote:
It might also be noted that Cocaine causes a Psychological addiction, not a physiological addiction.
Completely wrong. Please cite your source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_dependence
Cocaine dependence (or addiction) is a psychological desire to regularly use cocaine. It can result in cardiovascular and brain damage such as constricting blood vessels in the brain, causing strokes and constricting arteries in the heart, causing heart attacks [1] specifically in the central nervous system.

The use of cocaine can cause mood swings, paranoia, insomnia, psychosis, high blood pressure, tachycardia, panic attacks, cognitive impairments and drastic changes in the personality that can lead to aggressive, compulsive, criminal and/or erratic behaviors.
cited:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/coca ... cts?page=2

Cocaine addiction is a psychological addiction with physical effects, not a physical addiction with psychological effects.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Scott,
Normally Wikipedia is not considered a real reference, especially around here. But thank you for the links. I will look deeper into each to actual court decisions and opinions to see how the Harrison Act was used.

For physiological effects, it is well known that cocaine has them. Even your reference cited (not Wiki) speaks to it. The closest your link gets to your argument (Psychological only) is bolded, and speaks to the Pschological component of the addiction being stronger than the Physiological component. None the less, both exist. And as stated, withdrawl includes physical symptoms - which can be psychologically enhanced.

I have previously linked to dependance studies and analysis which speaks to this. I am not sure you read them.
Cocaine acts in the deep areas of the brain. These are the areas that reward us for "good behavior" -- those activities that lead to food, sex, and healthy pleasure. Stimulating this brain area with cocaine feels good. And it can create a powerful craving to use more cocaine. Repeated cocaine use leads to tolerance (that is, increasingly higher doses are needed to attain the same effect), dependence, and addiction.

There is no "safe" frequency of use for cocaine. It's impossible to predict whether a person will become physically or psychologically dependent on cocaine.

After using cocaine regularly for an extended period, dependence (addiction) develops. When dependence is present, stopping cocaine suddenly leads to withdrawal. Symptoms of withdrawal from cocaine are more psychological than physiological. Typically, cocaine withdrawal symptoms include:
depression and anxiety
fatigue
difficulty concentrating
inability to feel pleasure
increased craving for cocaine
physical symptoms including aches, pains, tremors, and chills


Cocaine withdrawal is rarely medically serious. In certain people, withdrawal from cocaine may cause suicidal thoughts. Typically, withdrawal symptoms from cocaine addiction resolve within one to two weeks. However, intense craving for cocaine may return, even years after the last use.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/coca ... cts?page=2
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

CKay wrote:
ladajo wrote:
CKay wrote: Another strawman - where did I say that all drugs should be treated equally?
Strawman - Where did you say you didn't?
Umm... you don't understand what a strawman fallacy is, do you?
BTW Sugar is very much a recreational drug for some.
No, it really isn't. It's not psychoactive - the notion of a sugar rush is a long discredited myth.
Apparently you do not understand Strawman. Although, it does seem to be your favorite cited logical fallacy. Like a lifejacket to cling to to show power. Interesting.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

You like to cite any alternate interpretation of your unclear intent to be a strawman. That makes you a weak debater. You should avoid that. I would also posit that you intend your intent to be unclear, so you can do that as an out, and attempt seizure of "power" in the argument. Your claim to not have a position also supports this theory. If you are in a debate, by definition you have a position. What you are doing seems more like trolling for opportunities to take potshots. Pick a position, offer substantive suport for it, and defend it.

I repeat my question: Where did you say you didn't?

Regarding Sugar, which in case you did not catch it, shares the same 6 Carbon, 12 Hydrogen, 6 Oxygen structure as Alcohol and Carbohydrates, but differs in bonding, you remain wrong.

You should read past the first sentence and not cherry pick your opinion in the ref (Wikipedia) you cited. Your reference points to substantive evidence that sugar does induce physiological and psychological effects akin to addiction. Not really surprising given that it impacts the same physiological pleasure mechanisms as other drugs.

Try this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez

or this:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... -your-mind

Wikipedia is not a concrete reference. You should avoid using it as a cornerstone to any argument. In real academic and professional circles it is not admissable as substantive proof, in fact in some circles, it is completely banned as a citable reference. Using wikipedia is JV in core arguments.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Betruger wrote:
ladajo wrote:
CKay wrote: Why do you insist on this artificial separation between alcohol and 'drugs'?

Alcohol *is* a recreational drug. End of.
Your technical approach is understood, and technically correct. Alcohol is a drug. So is sugar for that matter, and even aspirin.

The difference that I choose to stick to lays with the accepted social connotation. If you have not caught that nuance from me yet, it should be clear now. To the Average Joe, Alcohol is not a drug, but Cocaine and MJ are. This is an important distinction to understand when discussing the dynamics of control mechanisms, especially those that are taken in a major social context such as society at large.

Why do you insist that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally?
Perhaps what he envisions is a world where drugs other than alcohol are equal in that it isn't beyond Average Joe to understand their influence and side effects as adequately as alcohol's. Viz. Heroine's past prevalence.

Distinguishing each drug as one-of-a-kind actor in biochemistry, and therefore drugs only being "equal" in that all of them must be comprehensively understood. Vulgar and much smaller degree instance of this appreciation being fine wine tasting or picking just the right kind of booze to fit the mood of a party - is the goal to get hammered or to maximize time spent on that buzz sweet spot?

Less vulgar and higher degree instance being the exact science of hard drugs' "reasonable" range of usefulness: what exact territory in each drug's composition and practical use yields (e.g.) what exact sensory (etc) effects.
This clinical understanding being one way to justify prohibition - if a drug has no such feasible sweet spot, if it can't be manufactured and used in a way that doesn't invariably make you jump out of windows or cause permanent non-negligible brain damage and so on, then from a regulation POV it's a compelling line to draw in the sand.

edit- oops, didn't see topic page # 4.
This is the dilemma. But I think the answer may lay in sticking to risk levels interpretation and understanding. Keep it simple. Society has more or less found a balancing point for Alcohol access and use, albiet contentious in some circles, but none the less it is a risk balance mechanism. That is based on perceptions and understandings that it is a more controllable and understood substance. In simple terms, the risks are lower, and easier to manage. This is not seen to be the case for "drugs". But maybe eventually, as individual drugs are split out in the risk management process, Police will be carrying more than just breathlalyzers for Driving Under the Influence stops. But that alone does nothing to address the involuntary burden to society risks nor involuntary risks incurred to non-addicts that are products of addicted persons.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

ladajo wrote:Apparently you do not understand Strawman.
The strawman fallacy is where one party seeks to present a distorted (and easily refuted) version of his opponents argument.

Thus, I argued that alcohol should be considered a recreational drug. You countered by claiming that I "insist that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally". That was neither implicit in my statement, nor an argument that I had previously used. It was therefore a strawman fallacy.
You like to cite any alternate interpretation of your unclear intent to be a strawman
.
My intent was clear - there was nothing in my statement to support your interpretation.

If I had instead said that shoplifters should be considered criminals, no one would interpret that as meaning that all criminals should be treated equally.That I had not previously denied the latter would be neither here no there.
Although, it does seem to be your favorite cited logical fallacy.

Nowt to do with me - I'm not the one who's been building them.
Like a lifejacket to cling to to show power. Interesting.
Empty rhetoric *shrug*

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

ladajo wrote:Regarding Sugar, which in case you did not catch it, shares the same 6 Carbon, 12 Hydrogen, 6 Oxygen structure as Alcohol and Carbohydrates, but differs in bonding, you remain wrong.
Oh dear... ethanol has how many carbon atoms? How many for sucrose? What are the respective C:H:O ratios for ethanol and for sucrose? (Oh, and duh, sugar *is* a carbohydrate.)

If we consider the implied notion that molecules derived from C,H,O are mere variations on a theme - even then, there are almost limitless different organic compounds that can be built from combinations of those three elements. They are not all considered (recreational or therapeutic) drugs!
You should read past the first sentence and not cherry pick your opinion in the ref (Wikipedia) you cited.[...]Wikipedia is not a concrete reference. You should avoid using it as a cornerstone to any argument. In real academic and professional circles it is not admissable as substantive proof, in fact in some circles, it is completely banned as a citable reference. Using wikipedia is JV in core arguments.
Cool... so when did I reference this wikip article?

Hate to say, but I think that qualifies as another strawman...

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

CKay wrote:
ladajo wrote:Regarding Sugar, which in case you did not catch it, shares the same 6 Carbon, 12 Hydrogen, 6 Oxygen structure as Alcohol and Carbohydrates, but differs in bonding, you remain wrong.
Oh dear... ethanol has how many carbon atoms? How many for sucrose? What's the ratio of C:H:O for ethanol and for sucrose?

(And, duh, sugar *is* a carbohydrate.)

If we consider the implied notion that molecules derived from C,H,O are mere variations on a theme - even then, there are almost limitless different organic compounds that can be built from combinations of those three elements. They are not all considered (recreational or therapeutic) drugs!
You should read past the first sentence and not cherry pick your opinion in the ref (Wikipedia) you cited.[...]Wikipedia is not a concrete reference. You should avoid using it as a cornerstone to any argument. In real academic and professional circles it is not admissable as substantive proof, in fact in some circles, it is completely banned as a citable reference. Using wikipedia is JV in core arguments.
Cool... so when did I reference this wikip article?

Hate to say, but I think that qualifies as another strawman...
You are correct, You did not cite wikipedia. Although, you do seem to sound just like its entries.
Any concept of sugar addiction is complicated by a lack of consensus on the actual definition of addiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction

But that aside. I mixed your posts with Scott's. My mistake.

In fact, in your normal trolling for potshots methodology, you do not in fact generally cite anything. You make a post, leave it somewhat ambiguous in intent and meaning, and then jump back when someone interprets it and make your primary argument, "Strawman", that's not what I said.

Your ripostes make me smile every time I read them.
You make your posts like you are the definitive source, and do not need backup. The "I said it, and thus it is so, as it is common knowledge to all mankind" approach. It is funny to me that you come across that way, like I said, makes me smile every time. Your unsubstantiated certainty is continually amusing. You remind me of a guy I worked with a long time ago when I was working in Nuclear Power. He liked to tell people, "We are not arguing, I am telling you where you are wrong". He really meant it, and it really made me laugh every time.

Duh, Sugar is a hexose Carbohydrate. And Carbohydrates do come in many forms, which was part of my point. However, it is interesting to note, which apparently escaped you each time, that "Alcohol" (in my case referencing specifically Inositol, which I also did as an irony given one of its uses as a substance to cut drugs with) and Sugar share the hexose construct. I crossed the C6H12O6 construct on purpose to show you that terminology does matter, and without an understanding of meaning and intent, it is easy to "argue".
You don't seem to get it when folks use your techniques to make fun of them. Notice this time that I have not provided any citations either.
You can look it up yourself.

After that, you can define what you really mean when you say, "Sugar is not a recreational drug."

and, you can back this up with real evidence (citations):
No, it really isn't. It's not psychoactive - the notion of a sugar rush is a long discredited myth.
and counter the references I provided that indicate otherwise.
Or you can continue to troll.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

ladajo wrote:You make your posts like you are the definitive source, and do not need backup.
Like when you claimed to have watched people being physically forced to take cocaine until they became addicted (which presumably took a good while) and then, when asked, couldn't back that up with any evidence? *cough bullsit*

Or when you said that you once stood next to a ton of coke and could feel pure evil emanating from it (you must have psychic powers or something)?
I crossed the C6H12O6 construct on purpose
Sorry, don't believe you.

Post Reply