U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-19-2008, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,637,871 times
Reputation: 390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder It is simple for me to prove that hard drugs are no good for any society:
Haha--Wohhh

I don't even buy that ANY empirical claim is provable, and I think that "good" and "bad" are inherently subjective. In my view, no one would ever prove that anything is good or bad.
Quote:
it is a fact that any animal under the influence of hard drugs will severely lessen his chance of survival.
Assuming that "x is bad if x lessens one's chance of survival" (which I do not agree with), what would be relevant there is what happens with human animals.
Quote:
I mean it is only natural for herbivores to run away from an approaching predator on the prowl, but the animal who is 'high' might mistakenly run to the approaching predator instead of away from him.
If that were true (and I'd like to see the studies you're referring to), then if a non-human herbivore wanted to increase their chance of survival, they should probably avoid drugs. What that has to do with humans, I don't know.
Quote:
Therefore there are only human hard drug addicts because only in a human society can a stupid animal survive
I don't agree that people are stupid because they do or are addicted to drugs.
Quote:
or pass on his defective genes.
And likewise I do not think that they have "defective genes", that intelligence is simply genetic, etc.
Quote:
And the same rules that apply to the individual will also apply to societies.
I'm a nominalist. That's a hard sell to me.
Quote:
The thing with being a performer is that you don't need to hunt to get food, but the moment you need to hunt for food, using hard drugs will only become a serious problem.
So we're talking about people who have to hunt for food having problems if they just did some coke or something? I would guess that that might make the hunt go even better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2008, 10:07 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,518,646 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder
Quote:
I don't agree that people are stupid because they do or are addicted to drugs
That may be so, but they certainly are prone to do stupid things (like driving under the influence for instance).

Quote:
And likewise I do not think that they have "defective genes", that intelligence is simply genetic, etc.
If the forefathers have been addicts the chance that their offspring will become addicts only increases.
So that in combination with acting stupid leads me to conclude that their genes can only be classified as defective.

Quote:
I would guess that that might make the hunt go even better.
You never hallucinated while under the influence of drugs?
Or had a bad trip?
Now imagine what would've happened if you had a weapon and a bad trip.
An in the end I doubt you'll have food too.
And I’m talking about hard drugs not (organic) weeds.
Cauz only humans are stupid enough to believe they can make billions with creating super addictive hard drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2008, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,637,871 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Tungsten_UdderThat may be so, but they certainly are prone to do stupid things (like driving under the influence for instance).
I drove once with a guy who had (1) smoked a couple joints, (2) done coke, (3) dropped some acid, and (4) had a couple beers on top of it to boot. I didn't want to get in the car with him, but in the situation, it was either take that chance or miss a plane that would have royally screwed up an opportunity I had. Luckily, and surprisingly enough, if I hadn't seem him do all those drugs during the course of the afternoon, I would have never had the faintest idea that he wasn't completely straight. I had another friend whom I drove with many times and never really had any inkling that he was ever high, and then I later found out that he dropped acid almost every day. Of course, you supposedly build up an immunity to it after awhile, but that didn't stop him for whatever reason.

Meanwhile, I've driven with people who I never had any reason to believe were in an altered state of consciousness where I couldn't wait to get out of the car because they drove so bad.

Of course, I've driven with people who were drunk or high who drove bad too, but I don't think it's a simple matter of "people who are drunk or high drive worse than people who aren't drunk or high". It seems to me to depend on the person in question, how they handle the substances, etc. I'd more readily buy that the same person drunk or high will tend to have a harder time driving than that person straight, but some people, at least, drive fine on various substances.
Quote:
If the forefathers have been addicts the chance that their offspring will become addicts only increases.
What study are you referring to there?
Quote:
So that in combination with acting stupid leads me to conclude that their genes can only be classified as defective.
lol--"TrickyD the eugenicist" now?
Quote:
You never hallucinated while under the influence of drugs?
Or had a bad trip?
I've hallucinated on hallucinogenics, sure--which was the main point of doing them.

But I mentioned coke, and commented on people hunting on coke. It's a "hard drug" that's not a hallucinogenic. Heroin is another "hard drug" that's not a hallucinogenic.
Quote:
Now imagine what would've happened if you had a weapon and a bad trip. An in the end I doubt you'll have food too.
I'd agree that it wouldn't be a good idea to do acid on a hunting trip. (Although on the other hand, talking about those guys I was talking about earlier, I don't doubt that they'd be able to hunt on acid. I sure wouldn't want to try it, but I haven't done any drugs for almost 20 years, and I rarely even drink alcohol (I have nothing against it, I just don't get around to it very often, lol) so I'm quite the "lightweight".)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 12:36 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,518,646 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder
Quote:
What study are you referring to there?
To the studies that reveal that mental illness often is hereditary.
Fact is that drug abuse increases the susceptibility to mental illness, especially if an ancestor already suffered from a mental illness.
So the problem becomes when people who suffer from a mental illness experiment with drugs as a form of self-medication*.
Quote:
lol--"TrickyD the eugenicist" now?
I'm better safe than sorry.
Quote:
But I mentioned coke, and commented on people hunting on coke. It's a "hard drug" that's not a hallucinogenic. Heroin is another "hard drug" that's not a hallucinogenic.
I guess that even you don't wanne be near a coke user with a gun who's suffering from cocainomania** or a cocaine psychosis***.
And I doubt heroine is any better****.
Quote:
*Drug use can also be perceived as a component or symptom of a psychiatric or personality disorder and as an attempt to self-medicate (e.g. Williams et al., 1990; Murray et al., 2003). The fact that substance use alleviates distressing symptoms encourages the development of addiction. Once the drug use is discontinued, e.g. through withdrawal or substitution treatment, the symptoms may reappear. Acute drug-induced psychoses occur particularly in users of cocaine, amphetamines and hallucinogens and usually subside relatively quickly. It may, however, be very difficult to differentiate between symptoms due to substance intoxication and unrelated psychotic episodes
Source: Aetiology

**Central nervous system and psychiatric effects:
Users who have pleasurable experiences report varying degrees of euphoria; increased energy, excitement, and sociability; less hunger and fatigue; a marked feeling of increased physical and mental strength; and decreased sensation of pain. Some will feel a great sense of power and competence that may be associated with the delusion or false sense of grandeur, known as cocainomania.
(...)
With or even without increased amounts of coke, these can progress to excitement, flightiness, emotional instability, restlessness, irritability, apprehension, inability to sit still, teeth grinding, cold sweats, tremors, twitching of small muscles (especially of face, fingers, feet), muscle jerks, hallucinations (cocaine bugs, snow lights, voices and sounds, smells), and cocaine psychosis.*** Cocaine psychosis resembles paranoid schizophrenia and can bring on paranoia, mania, and psychosis.
Major effects that usually cause a cocaine abuser to go to an emergency department are severe headache, seizures, loss of consciousness that can be caused by not breathing or bleeding in the brain, stroke, hyperthermia (increased body temperature), coma, loss of vital support functions (such as low blood pressure, slow heart rate, slow respirations, and death).
Source: Cocaine Abuse

****Short Term Heroin Effects
Soon after injection (or inhalation), heroin crosses the blood-brain barrier. In the brain, heroin is converted to morphine and binds rapidly to opioid receptors. Abusers typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation, a "rush." The intensity of the rush is a function of how much drug is taken and how rapidly the drug enters the brain and binds to the natural opioid receptors. Heroin is particularly addictive because it enters the brain so rapidly. With heroin, the rush is usually accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, dry mouth, and a heavy feeling in the extremities, which may be accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and severe itching.

After the initial effects, abusers usually will be drowsy for several hours. Mental function is clouded by heroin's effect on the central nervous system. Cardiac function slows. Breathing is also severely slowed, sometimes to the point of death. Heroin overdose is a particular risk on the street, where the amount and purity of the drug cannot be accurately known.
Source: heroin effects by drug effects.com (http://www.drug-effects.com/heroin-effects.htm - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 10:48 AM
 
339 posts, read 627,385 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
I drove once with a guy who had (1) smoked a couple joints, (2) done coke, (3) dropped some acid, and (4) had a couple beers on top of it to boot. I didn't want to get in the car with him, but in the situation, it was either take that chance or miss a plane that would have royally screwed up an opportunity I had. Luckily, and surprisingly enough, if I hadn't seem him do all those drugs during the course of the afternoon, I would have never had the faintest idea that he wasn't completely straight. I had another friend whom I drove with many times and never really had any inkling that he was ever high, and then I later found out that he dropped acid almost every day. Of course, you supposedly build up an immunity to it after awhile, but that didn't stop him for whatever reason.

Meanwhile, I've driven with people who I never had any reason to believe were in an altered state of consciousness where I couldn't wait to get out of the car because they drove so bad.

Of course, I've driven with people who were drunk or high who drove bad too, but I don't think it's a simple matter of "people who are drunk or high drive worse than people who aren't drunk or high". It seems to me to depend on the person in question, how they handle the substances, etc. I'd more readily buy that the same person drunk or high will tend to have a harder time driving than that person straight, but some people, at least, drive fine on various substances. What study are you referring to there? lol--"TrickyD the eugenicist" now?I've hallucinated on hallucinogenics, sure--which was the main point of doing them.

But I mentioned coke, and commented on people hunting on coke. It's a "hard drug" that's not a hallucinogenic. Heroin is another "hard drug" that's not a hallucinogenic. I'd agree that it wouldn't be a good idea to do acid on a hunting trip. (Although on the other hand, talking about those guys I was talking about earlier, I don't doubt that they'd be able to hunt on acid. I sure wouldn't want to try it, but I haven't done any drugs for almost 20 years, and I rarely even drink alcohol (I have nothing against it, I just don't get around to it very often, lol) so I'm quite the "lightweight".)
"But I drive better when I'm drunk/high." Come on!!!!!!!!!! This is classic that there is nothing anyone can say or any statistic that can be shown that would change your opinion on this matter. You can rationlize anything. My friend loaded on all sorts of drugs drives better than most people who are completely sober. It was a pleasant surprise to get in a car with a guy who was loaded. He drove just swell! Again...Come on!!!!! I know you aren't condoning it, but seriously...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,488,886 times
Reputation: 4104
I play video games better when drunk, but that's it....People who drink/get stoned and drive should know better.

However if I &^%$ up in the digital world I don't hurt anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 10:24 PM
 
13,723 posts, read 25,301,104 times
Reputation: 8657
If you were going to keep pot illegal based on what effect it might have on driving you've got to go back to alcohol prohibition too. That's been proven not to work, just like the other. The difference is that we talk about alcohol prohibition strictly in a historical context - one that should be looked at harder when going about drug policy.

If you drink, smoke or whatever, drive and mess up, you go to prison. Everyone is responsible for themselves. Let's save a cell and a court docket for those people who mess up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 06:46 AM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,246,318 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81 View Post
If you were going to keep pot illegal based on what effect it might have on driving you've got to go back to alcohol prohibition too. That's been proven not to work, just like the other. The difference is that we talk about alcohol prohibition strictly in a historical context - one that should be looked at harder when going about drug policy.

If you drink, smoke or whatever, drive and mess up, you go to prison. Everyone is responsible for themselves. Let's save a cell and a court docket for those people who mess up.
I know this will receive serious rebuttal, but this argument (along with Tungsten's about the ONE time he was with a friend high on drugs and survived) is woefully inadequate. I don't know of anyone (including myself) that didn't make the bad decision to drink and drive. And I'm not talking about one beer, or shot, or glass of wine, or whatever. I'm talking about drinking and driving.

But, according to many reputable sites (and some not so reputable), between 15,000-30,000 people have been killed annually over the last 20 years due to alcohol related driving accidents alone. Of course, logically, the numbers increase when taken in as a whole - and that is not just the people who did the drinking, that takes into account innocent people as well. Therefore, we have proven that taking any drug (to this case - alcohol) is not safe for society. We also know that the nicotine in cigarettes has caused many to become addicted and die to the combined cigarette effects as well (emphazima, tar, lung cancer, heart disease, etc.).

But, we also know that one 100 percent of people who drink alcohol don't do so responsibly. The same would hold true for other drugs if legalized. There would be a large percentage of people who would just smoke/snort/inject/ingest drugs in their home. However, I think it's logical to apply the same percentages of those who abuse alcohol to abuse the other drugs. Even if it's only 3 or 5 percent. So, we are legally introducing another 3-5 percent of the population to inherently endanger other innocent people. This begs two questions:

1. Why would we knowingly and willingly subject the public safety to a higher increase of impaired drivers/workers, etc.? To save a couple million (billion?) dollars? How much is a life worth? How about 10,000-30,000 additional lives? If it's your mom, dad, brother, sister, or child, it might be worth it to keep the increased number of users legally off the road.

2. Why are we even discussing legalizing drugs? What's the purpose of a drug? According to a college textbook by Charles F. Levinthal (Drugs, Society, and Criminal Justice (2008)), the collegiate definition of a drug is: "a chemical substance that, when taken into the body, alters the structure or functioning of the body in some way." Other than medicinal purposes (which I am strongly in favor of), we are legalizing drugs for no other reason than for people to mess up their mental faculties, behavior, or physiological functioning. Don't we have better things to pay attention to in our society?

Last edited by Rathagos; 12-22-2008 at 07:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 07:29 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,637,871 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Tungsten_UdderTo the studies that reveal that mental illness often is hereditary.
And the studies that claimed that drug addiction is caused by mental illness?
Quote:
Fact is that drug abuse increases the susceptibility to mental illness, especially if an ancestor already suffered from a mental illness.
We're getting really off-topic here, but the Williams paper cited studied 67 people who were receiving methadone. I do not agree that's a large enough sample, and it could be biased to people who seek treatment (in other words, it could be that people who seek treatment tend to have depressive symptoms, not opiate addicts in general). Furthermore, the Williams paper doesn't claim a causal connection but talks about a correlation cited in other papers (which I'd have to look at, too), which they're agreeing with. For the Williams paper, they didn't appear to examine patients seeking treatment for other sorts of behavioral dysfunction who weren't addicted to opiates.

The emedicine site and drug-effects.com sites appear to give no sources whatsoever (although maybe I just didn't look far enough into the links).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,637,871 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDTD View Post
"But I drive better when I'm drunk/high." Come on!!!!!!!!!!
How does that resemble anything I've said?
Quote:
This is classic that there is nothing anyone can say or any statistic that can be shown that would change your opinion on this matter.
It's true that there's nothing anyone could say that would change my opinion on whether drugs should be legal, sure. Hopefully that's not what anyone was trying to do.
Quote:
My friend loaded on all sorts of drugs drives better than most people who are completely sober.
Again, that resembles nothing I've said.

Maybe take a look at this: Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top