CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why do many people find the act of other people doing drugs to be wrong?
I am not talking about matters of law here, though that could play a part. Why, even when it is proven scientifically harmless to you, do people see a person altering their own consciousness to be wrong? The WHO has just produced a report that shows moderate cocaine use to not be a detriment to the health of the user. Marijuana is so non-toxic it's LD 5.0 is more thc than you could ever get into your body at once. Hallucinogens have shown to produce very positive mental effects on people including a study that showed how they unwire addiction in the brain. Most of the answers I get are overprotective and don't take into account the fact that the percentage of the population that becomes addicted to something is usually around a constant percentage and is completely outweighed by those who use responsibly. So tell me, why is it wrong for a person to alter their mind or body with an outside substance?
It's really funny how the social stigma with respect to drug use has evolved in this country. Coming home from work and drinking beer or wine to relax is completely socially acceptable, but coming home from work and smoking a joint to relax is not. Even though unlike marijuana alcohol is addictive, causes you to actually lose control of your behavior and potentially do something dangerous, strongly inhibits driving ability, and is responsible for many deaths annually. Any way you look at it would be healthier to do marijuana than alcohol. The stigma began during the prohibition of marijuana when prohibitionists frightened the public into thinking Mexicans and blacks high on marijuana posed a great danger to society. One of the men responsible for the prohibition harry K. Anslinger remarked "this marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others." Then there was a falsified study that claimed to show that marijuana kills brain cells. And the stigma continues today in large part due to campaigns by alcohol and tobacco companies. They fund a lot of anti-drug ads because they want you to use their drugs and anyone who knows about the effects of these drugs would choose marijuana over alcohol and tobacco any day.
The main problem is the common phenomenon of how people are hypercritical of other people yet justifying of themselves. Just because you can't see why someone would want to do drugs does not make doing them wrong. I don't want to paint my nails, but that doesn't mean I think painting your nails is wrong. People have their own reasons and motivations for everything they do, and you should not think you have the right to be authority on morality. We all have our vices, so we should focus on getting rid of them instead of criticizing others for theirs.
Marijuana in this day and age, with all of the hydro stuff, can actually be addictive and you do have to be aware of what stuff it is and who you get it off. Also it greatly inhibits your ability to drive GREATLY and is also responsible for many deaths annually, wether it be healthwise ( for some reason pot smokers constantly ignore that dope has 7 times the amount of tar as cigarettes and is inhaled deeper for longer., meaning 3 cones is like having 21 cigarettes), not to mention the amount of accidents they have or CAUSE.
Your argument on people smoking marijuana doesn't influence someone while driving is false I my self have personally have been threw it and will never do it again also have seen others harm them selves
If we're going off of personal experience, I usually drive while high and it does nothing but cool my road rage and replace my "gotta get there now" mentality with a "we get there when we get there" state of mind. I'm a contract driver, I spend up to 10 hours driving a day, and I have never been in an accident, something I doubt I'd be able to say if I didn't smoke while driving all the time.
Some people think themselves unable to handle their shit when they get high, and these people might have a harder time driving while stoned, but regardless in relation to drugs and auto accidents alcohol is public enemy #1; marijuana doesn't even make the list. With all the propaganda already in place against marijuana, you can bet anti-bud activists would be pointing out all the horrendous crashes and accidents that result from smoking and driving. But you never/rarely hear about it because it never/rarely happens, and as we have an epidemic of drunk drivers across the world, I don't even see why it's worth discussing.
Yea I know people that are high everday and don't have problems but I've seen people harm them selves and others ur probably right about the numbers and I'm not against marijuana at all but I would hate to have some I know killed becuase of someone high or drunk or on pain medicine when they could of just waited to do it at home
Funny you mentioned the killing brain cells propaganda. Recently there have been 2 studies lately that show Marijuana induces Hippocampal Neurogenesis i.e. it actually regrows brain cells.
"If somebody hits and kills a family member with their car because they where high I would be pretty freaking pissed off. "
Alcohol is legal. Are you saying I should be mad at sleep when someone falls asleep at the wheel and kills someone when they drove while tired?
"Also anyone who commits a crime is guilty and should answer to the law."
This argument is old, it seems, for this argument. The law can and does change all the time. The law is not always indicative of what the entire society feels is right. Slavery, prohibition, women voting, and civil rights were all on different sides of the law from what they are today. Drug use is not an objective social imperative. Nearly all of these substance have always existed with humans.
" Are you saying I should be mad at sleep when someone falls asleep at the wheel and kills someone when they drove while tired? "
No, you should be mad at the idiot who was driving on a lack of sleep.
And you don't need illegal drugs to survive. So all in all, a poor argument. (=
" This argument is old, it seems, for this argument. The law can and does change all the time. "
That doesn't matter, justice is blind. If you want to change the law because you believe it should not be a law, go for it. But nobody that breaks the law, should get away with it.
"No, you should be mad at the idiot who was driving on a lack of sleep.
And you don't need illegal drugs to survive. So all in all, a poor argument. "
It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Slight difference. I was just establishing your line of thinking. It seemed you were blaming the inanimate over the person, like blaming terrorism instead of extremism, or guns instead of a murderer.
"But nobody that breaks the law, should get away with it."
Are you an absolutist when it comes to the law then? Should we start hunting down people who have not stopped at stop signs? Don't we normally relegate that kind of attitude toward crimes that actually victimize other people, like murder? Because it's really not the case for lesser crimes.
The reason it is wrong for another person to alter their mind or body with an outside substance is that no one has a God given right to be happier than me. If there's anything that burns me up more is someone who is happier than me. My greatest joy is pissing somebody off :)
a smiley denotes that I jest.... in order to piss someone off ;)
The drug itself is harmful to no one except the people who take the drug. But the effects that the drug has on the state of mind of the other person, effects everyone around them.
Every drug has a specific effect, and those effects are not usually positive with respect to survival. They effect the ability to operate a vehicle safely, the ability to consciously oppose sexual activity, the ability to make quick or rational decisions. You can't trust, for certain, someone who is under the influence to do anything but sit in a padded room, let alone drive or care for children. And as humans, we care about each other and don't want to allow self-destructive behavior.
"The drug itself is harmful to no one except the people who take the drug. But the effects that the drug has on the state of mind of the other person, effects everyone around them."
You are talking about addiction. Just using drugs does not make you an addict.
"You can't trust, for certain, someone who is under the influence to do anything but sit in a padded room,"
Seems like another statement made by those who have never met or have no friends who do any drugs. I disagree with everything you have said. Drugs are not voodoo. Millions in America use many types of drugs responsibly. It's estimated 14 million regularly smoke pot in America.
"And as humans, we care about each other and don't want to allow self-destructive behavior."
To me this just seems naive. Drugs that are illegal were all made that way for specific reasons with specific interests working toward that end. There are many legal things that people use that are self destructive. Cigarrettes only positive effect come from feed an addiction, it's the most useless, but harmful drug there is. That is why it's legal.
Please don't try to tell me what I am talking about. Because you're wrong. I was talking about the drug. I said nothing about addiction. Addiction does have context in this debate, but is an afterthought. It is a negative result of taking drugs.
Seems like another statement made by those who have never met or have no friends who do any drugs.
Oh. Yeah... no I've never ever ever been around any drugs. Ever... (sarcasm).
I love pot, but I don't do it too often anymore because it sent my brother and my now ex boyfriend off the deep end. I've been effected by drugs a lot in my life through friends, family and personally. But I'm not really talking about pot here. I'm talking about harder drugs, which it doesn't sound like you have too much experience with. I've learned from my experiences, though. And I know how to not let an admiration for something effect my reasoning.
You judged me, so I'll judge you. You sound like a dumbass, little teenage pot head. I think you should try and live a little before you pretend you know everything.
"Please don't try to tell me what I am talking about. Because you're wrong. I was talking about the drug. I said nothing about addiction. Addiction does have context in this debate, but is an afterthought. It is a negative result of taking drugs."
Fair enough.
"Oh. Yeah... no I've never ever ever been around any drugs. Ever...(sarcasm). I love pot, but I don't do it too often anymore because it sent my brother and my now ex boyfriend off the deep end. I've been effected by drugs a lot in my life through friends, family and personally. But I'm not really talking about pot here. I'm talking about harder drugs, which it doesn't sound like you have too much experience with. I've learned from my experiences, though. And I know how to not let an admiration for something effect my reasoning."
Hence the "Seems like" at the beginning of the statement. And even though you were so ardent about defending yourself, your defense ran right into the other reason I said in an above posting that most people have negative knee-jerk reaction attitudes, negative personal experience. I already addressed the validity of this in another post. You admit your admiration is not affecting you reason, your personal experience is which is completely natural and ok.
"which it doesn't sound like you have too much experience with. "
haha. Sorry, just had to chuckle again at that one again.
"You judged me, so I'll judge you. You sound like a dumbass, little teenage pot head. I think you should try and live a little before you pretend you know everything."
ha. Swing and a miss. While I won't chide you for the obvious use of ad-hominem attacks (that's name calling in case you didn't know), I will have to say I am speaking from experience not ignorance, and while I have never said I "know everything" I'm gonna make a leap here and say that I'm pretty sure I have more experience in this area than someone nearly a decade younger than me , if the age on your account is accurate. Not that that is any real standard, but I'm pretty certain you would have to have been using in middle school to get a head start on me when I started experimenting in college.
You see, I'm surrounded by responsible people who can live fulfilling lives while recreationally using drugs every now and again without all these negative effects everyone says always exist. Now I'm not going to go all Terrence McKenna/Tim Leary and say drugs will save us all, but I am arguing against an established societal norm that I disagree with. If you want to call me a dumbass for that, that is your prerogative.
How is negative personal experience not relevant? I'm not debating that you can't get high and have a great, safe time. I'm saying that you can't guarantee that with 100% certainty every single time. Sometime, somewhere, something shitty is going to happen. But again, pot isn't the drug I'm too worried about.
If you're 31, the you're a walking argument against pot usage.... Because you do sound like a teenager.
Your positive personal experiences are all fine and dandy. But there are negative possibilities and, most importantly, actualities.
Have you ever had a negative drug related personal experience? If not than you're lucky. But I'm from Norcal, where pot usage is widely accepted. And not all my experiences are positive.
And very few of my experiences with harder drugs are positive. Those are the drugs I'm really attacking. In fact, I don't believe my original argument said anything about pot.
Umm I agreed with you on the negative experience part. Perhaps before saying someone sounds like a teenager you should make sure you yourself are not reading on a grade school level if you cannot even derive the basic meaning from my sentences. I said nearly a decade :P.
Yes there are negative possibilities and actualities just as there are positives. You've said nothing, because that can be said about nearly everything. If you heard a man died in Alaska after eating McDonalds would you never eat McDonalds again because of that? People have to be responsible for themselves, and if they cannot handle drug use then they should not do it, but the government should not be able to tell me whether or not I can alter my brain chemistry, whether it is sugar or LSD.
I've absolutely had negative drug experiences that would probably chill you to the bone and I know many people who simply went off the deep end with it too, but I would never give away those experiences, and I would never presume to take those possible experiences from others. I've had friends or acquaintances freak on acid, binge on coke, I've talked people down on speed, I've carried people who passed out after too much dancing on X. All of that and more. But I knew what I was doing and what the drugs does to people and that is what our society is missing now or has forced underground, the shaman. Drug use comes to us from ancient religions, seriously. Many tribes in the world still use may naturally occurring hallucinogens as sacraments. Pot is a sacrament in a certain Hindu religion, and Rastafarianism. To do these things responsibly there are rules to follow to be safe that many simply do not know that cause negative experiences. I could elaborate but I'm not sure if that kind of thing would interest you so I'll stop there.
I'm starting to think you're not debating the right question here.
The question of the debate is "Why do many people find the act of other people doing drugs to be wrong?" I'm not saying people can't use drugs responsibly, but that the reason people find the act of other people doing drugs wrong is that is possibly destructive. Ie. those negative experiences. Again, not always.
but the government should not be able to tell me whether or not I can alter my brain chemistry, whether it is sugar or LSD.
Sugar is not the same as LSD... That's a crazy, irrelevant statement.
When people do hear about food born illnesses, they do stop eating them. Think all the recent peanut butter and vegetable scares. So yes, people would stop eating Mcdonalds because of the news that a man in Alaska died from eating Mcdonalds.
To do these things responsibly there are rules to follow to be safe that many simply do not know that cause negative experiences.
And you trust kids and irresponsible people to use drugs responsibly?
"that the reason people find the act of other people doing drugs wrong is that is possibly destructive"
But there are so many things in society that are "possibly destructive". Isn't it more prudent to educate adults of those possibilities and let them decide? Over eating is possibly destructive, but we don't outlaw it even though it causes health problems. Eating rat poison is harmful, it kills you, but you can still buy it in a store.
"Sugar is not the same as LSD... That's a crazy, irrelevant statement."
In a basic sense, yes, they are the same. Both chemical substances that affect the brain for a short time. While the degree is different, the principle, however is not. Sugar actually has a crash or withdrawal making it in some respects more drug-like than LSD. If you can't see the relevancy of the statement then you don't understand what drugs are. It was intentional hyperbole.
"When people do hear about food born illnesses, they do stop eating them. Think all the recent peanut butter and vegetable scares. So yes, people would stop eating Mcdonalds because of the news that a man in Alaska died from eating Mcdonalds."
I disagree, they'll avoid recalled brands usually but do you really assume people stop eating something for the rest of their lives over something they may have not seen or experienced themselves? If you were right, all businesses that had said scares would immediately go out of business and that simply doesn't happen that ofter.
"And you trust kids and irresponsible people to use drugs responsibly?"
What a complete misrepresentation of what I am saying. If drugs were legal it wouldn't be for kids, genius. Regulation helps keep these kinds of thing away from kids hands, of course there will always be that guy who buys the kids beer. Irresponsible people exist so you are just going to have to get over that one. We try to not let them ruin everything in society for the rest of us, and as I said most drug users are not like that anyway. Irresponsible people can go buy guns legally, and I'd say that's more "possibly destructive" even though I am for gun rights as well.
Isn't it more prudent to educate adults of those possibilities and let them decide?
Well that's for individuals to decide via the democratic process. Honestly, we don't need drugs to survive (with the exception of prescription drugs which I'm assuming, for this example, would be abused sometimes but never legally). If you find that you do, then you have an addiction and need to deal with it.
An addiction to food is a mental disorder that can be corrected with therapy. Yes, it is an addiction and does harm your physically. But overeating doesn't cause you drive any differently or compromise any other abilities. It doesn't make you a danger to anyone else.
While the degree is different, the principle, however is not.
But the degree is what's important. Sugar, again, wont make you crash your car.
people stop eating something for the rest of their lives
No, because the Mcdonalds or farmers or distributers would fix the problem and restore the confidence in their product. Food isn't intended to be bad for you, the problem is a contamination to the food. The drug is the "problem".
there will always be that guy who buys the kids beer
There is scarcely a high school kid out there who hasn't been offered beer or pot, and pot isn't even legal. So then if drugs were legalized there wouldn't be a kid out there who wasn't offered acid or heroin or the like.
Irresponsible people exist so you are just going to have to get over that one. We try to not let them ruin everything in society for the rest of us, and as I said most drug users are not like that anyway.
Most drug users are upstanding citizens? Responsible people? Well what do you have to say to the family of people that drugs have killed? The families of those who have overdosed, or been killed in car accidents or in a myriad of other drug related incidents. That is why people don't like drugs.
Most pot users, maybe. But again, I'm not really against pot. It's the harder, more addictive, more damaging drugs.
I'm going to start pointing out your fallacies when they occur, as they have become legion.
"we don't need drugs to survive"
I do not need many things I have in the modern world to survive. No one even mentioned this and it is plainly fallacy of reduction/over simplification.
"An addiction to food is a mental disorder"
There you go again being reductionist again. So all people who overeat are food addicts now? Like all drug users are addicts?
"Sugar, again, wont make you crash your car."
Tell that to a diabetic. The circumstances and specific substance are always what is important. That's why I try and stay away from generalizing drugs into one group like most people do as much as I can.
Sugar is consumed so much people don't even think about it and develop diseases because of it.
"No, because the Mcdonalds or farmers or distributers would fix the problem and restore the confidence in their product. Food isn't intended to be bad for you, the problem is a contamination to the food. The drug is the "problem"."
Let's just stop on the food analogy, we're making completely different points with them. I was talking about peoples negative reactions to things while you set up a straw man argument with the false dichotomy of their being food and food with a foreign poison that equals drugs while the food/society is just infected. Food does not equal society and your straw man is BS. Two fallacies in one argument on that one.
"So then if drugs were legalized there wouldn't be a kid out there who wasn't offered acid or heroin or the like."
Slippery Slope Fallacy
"Most drug users are upstanding citizens? Responsible people? Well what do you have to say to the family of people that drugs have killed? The families of those who have overdosed, or been killed in car accidents or in a myriad of other drug related incidents. That is why people don't like drugs."
Yes, most drug users are, if not upstanding, harmless citizens. Most people who do or have done drugs don't end up jail or rehab either. You don't hear about them on news, though. I guess that means they don't exist in your world.
I mentioned that we don't need drugs to survive in contrast to the fact that we do need food to survive. So while you can abstain from drugs completely, you need to eat.
So all people who overeat are food addicts now? Like all drug users are addicts?
I didn't say that. You can overeat every once in a while and that's fine. But if you are addicted to food and overeat every day then you become obese. You have to be addicted to food if it's going to be dangerous.
Tell that to a diabetic.
Diabetes is a disease... It's something that people should control very carefully, and is a special circumstance.
When normal every day people eat sugar it does not effect them
in a way that drugs would.
Let's just stop on the food analogy, we're making completely different points with them.....
I'm sorry but, no. I didn't say food equals society. I'm speaking of people's negative reactions to contaminated food, and to drugs. My point was that the contaminated food is a mistake, but the drug is operating as it should. So while people have a continued negative feeling towards the drug, their confidence in the food can be restored. I think you're not paying attention. Please go back a few posts and read what you said about a man in Alaska eating Mcdonalds and read from there.
"So then if drugs were legalized there wouldn't be a kid out there who wasn't offered acid or heroin or the like."
Slippery Slope Fallacy
It may be tough for you to understand, but I believe this to be a relevant point, and not that far of a jump.
Let me ask you this instead: "How should we keep beer and pot out of the hands of children, as the law stands now?"
I guess that means they don't exist in your world.
I didn't say that. I have conceded that responsible adults can use pot and some other drugs responsibly. But not all of them. Until you can guarantee that most every user will be responsible, there will be a negative stigma.
You avoided my question:
Well what do you have to say to the family of people that drugs have killed? The families of those who have overdosed, or been killed in car accidents or in a myriad of other drug related incidents. That is why people don't like drugs."
"Please go back a few posts and read what you said about a man in Alaska eating Mcdonalds and read from there."
Yes but you assumed the cause. I just said he died after eating there. The point was the baseless assumption that the food killed him that you ran with exactly like the baseless assumption people have about drug when people make bad examples of themselves. If he choked on the burgers would you still be right? You assumed your fallacies to make your point correct. That's why I suggested leaving the analogy and still do.
"When normal every day people eat sugar it does not effect them
in a way that drugs would."
"Our findings with lab rats show that intermittent access to sugar can lead to changes in the brain and behavior similar to those caused by drugs of abuse," said Bart Hoebel, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Princeton University. "In certain models, sugar-bingeing causes long-lasting effects on the brain..."
"It may be tough for you to understand, but I believe this to be a relevant point, and not that far of a jump."
It may be hard for you to understand, but Illogical arguments do not prove points.
"Let me ask you this instead: "How should we keep beer and pot out of the hands of children, as the law stands now?"
The system alcohol is under is completely adequate especially considering pot is not nearly as damaging as alcohol. Regulated drugs are only sold to adults with ID. This is the best way to keep them from children. Drug dealers do not check ID, and while it may not be perfect that is ok. We do not have to institute totalitarian measures on activities adults do for recreation, nearly always away from children, to protect children. You will never have all of any group be perfectly responsible and to think so is to deny reality.
Well what do you have to say to the family of people that drugs have killed? The families of those who have overdosed, or been killed in car accidents or in a myriad of other drug related incidents. That is why people don't like drugs."
I avoided nothing. Your question is pointless as you are appealing to sympathy trying to make a cold reality seem insensitive which doesn't make it any less true. You have so little actual meat to your argument you bring up distraught families as a shield.
If a person overdoses it is their fault. I have friends who have overdosed and lived, but even if they had died it would have been their fault not the substances.
Driving under the influence of many drugs is explicitly harmful to others, therefore, rightfully illegal.
Everything else aside... Which my points are valid in context and with realistic limitations regarding Mcdonald's practices and the selling of alcohol. But you don't seem to be accepting of facts that matter in the real world. So all bullshit aside. You have conceded that:
Driving under the influence of many drugs is explicitly harmful to others, therefore, rightfully illegal.
But many people still do it, repeatedly even. And that is the answer to the question, "Why do many people find the act of other people doing drugs to be wrong?"
Do you understand? Or would you like to defend drunk driving?
I conceded driving under the influence is rightfully illegal. And???
This has NOTHING to do with the original argument, and once again I shall have to call you out on yet another fallacy.
STRAW MAN ARGUMENT
Again, illogical arguments cannot lead to a sound conclusion.
You apparently have no actual answer if you can't put the driving aspect in there somewhere which has NO relevance to the question of is drinking alcohol in and of itself wrong, which the predominant answer is BY FAR no for alcohol considering how many people use it on a regular basis in this country. I don't have to defend drunk driving to make my point because it's the straw man YOU want to set up.
This was a good debate, but we are beyond a dead end here. Your last few arguments have been full of logical errors which has degraded the debate, no offense. From our conversation all I can pull is that the main reason for you is negative personal experience. Everything else you've argued has fallen through the cracks.
Brevity: Drug use is an integral part of civilized life. Animals use drugs. There are therapeutic uses to many illegal drugs; LSD therapy is the most effective treatment for alcoholism.
To answer the question, people fear and resent that which they do not understand. Instead of basing their stance on facts and science, they give in to ignorance and fear.
Sure it's against the law and sure when things are done in moderation there are usually no ill effects, however, we don't know that before the fact...only after and there's the rub I think. If a person is predisposed to addiction the first time is the kick start and may lead to more than moderate usage. Cocaine, when taken in larger doses can lead to addiction very easily and that's when people get into trouble with it.
Even if it doesn't lead to addiction it can still cause things to go a bit haywire. Hallucinogens alter the mind and dimensions of things right in front of you. I remember coming home one early morning after a night of clubbing and while stopped at a red light, I thought that I saw it turn green out of the corner of my eye. It hadn't! Had it been a bit later in the morning or had there been traffic I would have smoked myself into a nifty little accident right there and then. It's just wrong to jeopardize another person's life because you want to smoke or blow some cocaine or, for that matter, have one drink too many so your mind is not focused on the task at hand.
There's nothing wrong with letting loose every now and again and unwinding from the days labors...but do it at home and not in a place where you'll put someone else behind the eight ball.
lol I love the drunk animal music in the background.
=D
Anyways, people get drunk too. I'm sure if the drunk animals where putting people in danger we would do something about it. And when animals are putting themselves in danger don't we stop them? But hey!, let them be right? no.
Because they're jealous! No, I don't know, it's ridiculous. I don't press anything on anyone (unless I'm asked to, debate-style), so don't press anything on me.
Homo sapiens are not the only creature doing drugs. The thing is: we have always done this and we always will. It's pointless arguing it's stupid. Anyone doing so will have the whole of human history against them.
Main reason being it's utterly pointless. So what if you can get dazed for a while; what exactly is the point? Ya see, in my mind, anything you take to alter your natural mindset, is ridiculous because the bottom line is that your natural mindset depresses you or bores you and you want an "escape." And I guess I just frown on people that like to think that way. It seems to say they have no self-respect, nor any self-esteem, at all. It's like lowering your tail between your legs and wimpering away your life instead of holding your head up high and appreciating life the way it IS.
There is no such thing as "a natural mindset" - people´s brain cemistry differs alot along with their personality.
Addiction goes way further then drugs and by the way - obiesty for example kills more people on average than heroin (Heroin actually is not very dangerous to your body - what makes it dangerous is that it is sold on a black market and is not sold in regulated dozes - Im not defending how addictive it is though)
Some "over the counter" drugs in the USA are easier do overdoze on then for example weed ( an illegal substance in most states)
The reason people get bothered is usally because they have this illusion well honed by PR campaigns from the government that drug dealers are praying on kids. - and the reason this is wrong is because no drug dealer advertizes that he is one - if you want drugs, you will have to find him and not the other way around.
So aside from you assuming other people's intentions, emotions, logic, and well being...
You think it's wrong and other people shouldn't do it because you dislike it? Am I right on that?
Do you feel you can righteously say you dislike something if you haven't tried it or are you just regurgitating your childhood programming? Honest question, no intended offense. It's just that I've known so many people who have that knee jerk reaction like you just did and it always seems hollow. Sometimes they tell a story of a guy they knew who got addicted or something and that's usually where its coming from. So do you have a reason for the knee jerk response or do you feel that while you are (presumably) speaking from ignorance on the subject you can still righteously judge something you know nothing about?
My argument is from my observations of human behavior. It's like you'll also claim that there's nothing wrong with alcoholicism despite the decades of observations and research proving how addicting, mind-alterting, body-destroying, and mentally unstabalizing alcohol is in the human body and mind. Isn't it even more ignorant for someone who KNOWS the negative consequences and pointlessness of a substance to take and use it anyways? I wouldn't say I'm being ignorant towards my argument on substance use whatsoever, I'll say I'm wiser about it more than the average person and not suspectable of lowering myself to their level. And ya, I realize this sounded like I'm better than those that choose to do it all, but to each their own. It's just the different level of self-worth that I'm on. But really, if someone wants to do that stuff, I'm the last opinion they give a crap about; in fact, I'll say research AND my personal observations and experiences prove that if someone wants to do a substance, they will convince them self in as many ridiculous ways as possible that they should keep doing it, and they will. It really doesn't even take an idiot to HAVE to do all that shit to realize it's pointless and useless and that they should find better things to invest their time with. So, no, I won't say I have a "hollow" or "ignorant" perception of drug usage.
"It's like you'll also claim that there's nothing wrong with alcoholicism despite the decades of observations and research proving how addicting, mind-alterting, body-destroying, and mentally unstabalizing alcohol is in the human body and mind"
Alcoholism is addiction to alcohol. I agree, alcohol is a poison therefore it's not a stretch to deem the effects it causes harmful, but it is not harmful enough to warrant the return of prohibition apparently. Don't confuse recreational drug use with addiction. One can sometimes lead to the other , but they are not synonymous. Alcohol and cigarettes are the epitomes of pointless drugs who have negligible positive effects with the absolutely bad detriment of being addictive, but not all drugs are the same. Not even close.
"Isn't it even more ignorant for someone who KNOWS the negative consequences and pointlessness of a substance to take and use it anyways? I wouldn't say I'm being ignorant towards my argument on substance use whatsoever, I'll say I'm wiser about it more than the average person and not suspectable of lowering myself to their level."
Ignorance means without knowledge and wisdom is knowledge through experience. If you have never tried something you are ignorant of it and cannot possibly claim yourself to be wise in that area. That's logic. If you are proud of your ignorance just say so.
"they will convince them self in as many ridiculous ways as possible that they should keep doing it, and they will."
You are once again confusing addiction with recreational use.
Your views seem to be myopic on this subject. Extreme statements in rapid succession backed by very shaky logic tell me your arguments are probably not backed by much personal experience and that I have simply offended your world view.
Man, that don't make any sense that wisdom is knowledge through experience. That's like saying you can't be wise about drinking and driving unless you've actually drinked and drived. And if that's the only way anyone can be wise, than this world is pretty fked up.
I feel like you're just giving me as many excuses as you can to give yourself some good grounds for doing ridiculous stuff. But by the way, you did win me over with your right to do the drugs, so really, pat yourself on the back and go ahead and encourage society to do what you do. The world is full of people like you, what's one more?
"Man, that don't make any sense that wisdom is knowledge through experience. That's like saying you can't be wise about drinking and driving unless you've actually drinked and drived. And if that's the only way anyone can be wise, than this world is pretty fked up."
I gave the definition derived from positive psycology and used in modern philosophy so that's probably what threw you, sorry. They view wisdom as the coordination of knowledge and experience.
In that line of thinking you can't be wise about drinking in driving unless you base it off an experience. That doesn't mean it has to be of you doing it yourself, but perhaps the experience of someone else doing it that directly affected you. In a general sense, and taking in to account the basic dictionary definition, the word wise can be used in the way you are using it so I'll give you that.
"I feel like you're just giving me as many excuses as you can to give yourself some good grounds for doing ridiculous stuff. But by the way, you did win me over with your right to do the drugs, so really, pat yourself on the back and go ahead and encourage society to do what you do. The world is full of people like you, what's one more?"
I don't buy your grounds for calling it "ridiculous stuff", but it is your opinion so fair enough. As for my "excuses", I am attempting to rebut fallacious claims about things that many people who are against have very little knowledge of. Drinking carbonated drinks, smoking cigarettes, consuming beer, and many other things, to me, are all ridiculous but I don't demonize those who do it or try to stop them from doing it because they are harmful.
I am not here to encourage society to follow my lead, only to think about what they do and why they do it. I'll abstain from tossing back insulting self gratifying platitudes as you did. You were wrong at the very end, though:
The world is full of people like you. Narrow minded and afraid to have their world views shaken. The anger drips through your words because you can't stand that people exist who think differently, it seems. How dare I say you are wrong about something you know next to nothing about, right?.
Drugs can have an adverse affect on you, with cocaine you do not know what they cut it with, with marijuana there are so many chemicals they use to keep pests away you might well smoke pesticide. Drugs are a way to escape from ones problems but those problems are still gonna be there and using drugs can magnify and complicate the pre-existing problems.
"Drugs can have an adverse affect on you, with cocaine you do not know what they cut it with, with marijuana there are so many chemicals they use to keep pests away you might well smoke pesticide"
Yes and during prohibition alcohol made in bath tubs killed people. You are citing a problem created by non regulation because the substance is illegal. An effect, not a cause.
"Drugs are a way to escape from ones problems but those problems are still gonna be there and using drugs can magnify and complicate the pre-existing problems."
No, not all drug users are escaping anything. In fact most lead healthy productive lives. Me and my friends use recreationally occasionally and we all have degrees and masters so my experience simply does not line up with whatever you've read somewhere. I do agree that drugs can agitate preexisting medical conditions in some people though, so you should know what you are doing.
Well if my argument was nonsense then the whole point of anything is nonsense. ANYTHING. Which is probably the case anyways. Life is nonsense. Great. Problem solved.
In essence, because we enjoy the way the substance temporarily alters our brain. We enjoy the experience of being with each other when we do these things, and are closer because of it. I feel it is my right to alter my brain function in the manners of my choosing, whether I'm eating chocolate or eating Acid. Our brain functions are all chemically induced. Every time you enjoy a dessert or experience a kiss from one you love you are technically feeling the experience of substances in your brain.
Science has found that a burst of DMT may initiate conciousness in the womb. We've found LSD in our brain chemistry, and we have specific receptors in our brains that only receive cannibanoids, and those are only found in pot.
As a student of philosophy, I understand the implications of the limitations of our five senses and instead choose to turn my gaze inwards sometimes for a better personal understanding of the universe.
I am responsible and safe whenever I do any drug and promote these methods to those in the drug community that I come across, because I can do more than any anti-drug program to help people who are ignorantly and dangerously using drugs by educating them on what it means to do these things responsibly.
But all my philosophical rants are dwarfed by the first sentence of this rebut, because people do things that they consider to be good.
This argument is in fact an Ad Hominem as it implies that the original argument was made by drug addict and seeks to invalidate it depending on this belief.
It's usually wrong to people who's family members died from drugs or did horrible things in order to get those drugs.
I don't have a problem with drug use, even though i've seen first hand how fucked up it can get. The fact is, we live in a free country. People have a right to do w/e they want to themselves. The government should have no control over us. They shouldn't be deciding what's right for us or who deserves what.
The body reacts the way it does to drugs mainly because it's trying to tell the brain that this substance is bad. this is why we cough when smoking cigs or pot. It's trying to get it out cause it recognizes it as a harmful substance.
The body heats up when you're using XTC because the brain thinks it's fighting hysteria. This is why users of X often get "holes" burned into their brains.
LSD mimics schizophrenia (sort of). It can actually create a permanent schism in the brain, causing real schizophrenia. although, that is from chronic use.
PCP makes you real fucked up and paranoid. Users of PCP basically become the Hulk. Trying to kill and impossible to take down. I do believe that PCP should be illegal because it's dangerous mostly to others.
Crack and Meth are other drugs that should be illegal. They break down the body horribly and the high doesn't even last long. It's really just a substance used to make people dependent on drug dealers.
Heroin and Morphine are highly addictive. Chronic use very easily leads to death, and many people choke on their own vomit while sleeping. It's also almost impossible to withdraw from.
Cocaine is like a super soldier serum. Like PCP, it makes you almost invulnerable. It also makes you highly aware and full of energy. Like Red Bull, except it fucks up your sinuses and makes you paranoid as shit. If you have a busy day, though, definitely the right drug to take.
This is a country about freedom. Yes, drugs do bad things to the body, but there's no point in punishing someone for doing something bad to themselves. And for those who can take it responsibly, it can end up being a helpful substance. Many drugs are legal (zoloft, prozac, etc.). This can be because they're not as strong and don't cause hysteria; but people need drugs (the weak ones, but that's most people).
I figure the only drug actually worth trying is Acid.
Acid can be a fun drug to take but it can also be terrible and make you as paranoid as any other hallucinogens of any worth. I remember the first time I took it because I was told I developed a whole new language during the time I was "out there." It was the day the men landed on the moon and I felt as though I was on the moon along with them! But that was all after the fact because I had and have no real recollection of anything that happened that day. I know I was safely tucked away for the week-end at someone's house in the Hampton's with people I trusted. That never happened again and I'm glad it didn't. I did have a very bad experience with it the last time I took it so I stopped using it and never went back, it scared me so much. I don't know if it's still out there but "sunshine" is really the best I'd ever taken.
Wow Pyg, I had no idea you and I were so close on this issue. Thanks for actually giving your opinions on specific substances instead of lumping them all together like everyone else.
I find that the bottom line is governments, and in many cases private citizens, are being hypocritical in banning drugs like LSD and cannabis but condoning the recreational use of alcohol, tobacco, anti-depressants etc. In my opinion, people should have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies.
But seriously, it is everyone's responsibility to try and maintain a base level in our culture, a certain level of morality. From my own experience growing up in the 60s / 70s - nothing good comes from doing drugs - absolutely nothing. And if my brother is any proof - doing drugs seems to keep a person at an adolescent level of maturity too.
Let me throw a question back at you. Sniffing paint might be wonderful for some - but what possible reason would anyone want to make it legal?
Well i see your point. the law only interferes for the apparent protection of the people. However, as long as the tobacco business is bringing in profits, thats ok! Its totally ridiculous! I must say i am glad to find someone who agrees ( though i am not especially for drugs!)
