|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 01, 2022 08:53 AM |
|
|
@ Galaad and artu
Guys, you just state a belief of yours, but there are no points other than painting some dystopian picture of drug zombies running through the streets.
THEY DO ALREADY.
First of all, alcoholism. WHO estimates in 2016 amounted to 380 MILLION alcolics worldwide which is more than 5% of the world population. US are at 7%, Eastern Europe are at 11%. Alcoholism reduces the life expectancy of people by about 10 years.
And it also kills indirectly. People driving under the influence and killing others. People drunk on the job.
Then we have the smokers. More than a billion worldwide, severe health problems after long-term abuse.
You think that these drugs are more easily to control? On the contrary, exactly because it's a slower process and the drug is "portioned", if you know what I mean: one drink at a time, one smoke at a time. No problem therefore, right?
And then we have the opioid dependency. It is there already, because people are getting it prescribed. As I repeatedly mentioned, PAIN is the most common reason to develop one, because that's what these drugs do. Now, the trouble with this stuff is, that if your pain isn't chronical (because of some "attrition" based on age and so on), the prescription ends after a time and people wake up with a pretty big monkey on their shoulder.
People with strong pain (say, after an accident) will develop an opioid addiction, it's just that a sizable part of them hates the effect and will get over it, although the body craves it for a time. Addiction is a process that takes place in the mind, because it's basically a question of how much you like the effect of the drug and therefore use the withdrawal symptons as an excuse (I can't stand it any longer) or as an ordeal to burn it out because you hate it.
Then cocaine. 5.5 million users in the US alone, although it's illegal and NOT prescribed. Note AGAIN that cocaine is LEGAL in some countries like Peru.
Then we have ecstasy. And weed. And PCP. And LSD. Psilocibin. And speed/amphetamines. And...
All these drugs are on the market and used, and the fact that many of them are illegal makes it impossible to actually work with and against them. That something is forbidden often makes it attractive.
So. The genie is out of the lamp - has been right from the start.
People take drugs. They do it as long as people exist. Even animals do it. Accept it. De-mystify drugs. Enlighten kids about everything drug-related in school as is done with sex.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2022 11:38 AM |
- penalty applied by Galaad on 01 Nov 2022. |
|
JollyJoker said:
People take drugs. They do it as long as people exist. Even animals do it. Accept it. De-mystify drugs. Enlighten kids about everything drug-related in school as is done with sex.
so according to you, animals take illegal substances and children have sex. which tells me that you most likely don't have any issues with drag-queen story hour for the kids, either; since you're fine with strangers teaching children about sex.
every who is aligned with you on this, and think that harmful drugs should be legal, and that children should be taught sex ed and not teenagers, are part and parcel the reason why i hate most people these days. you're all destructive, retarded, and beyond redemption. and you all protect the jews and their corrupted, who push the worst of this snow on society.
you all have ruined any potential for actual ADVANCEMENT in human evolution. it is YOUR KIND responsible for all the backwards-sliding regression to lesser animals. it might be the jews and their corrupted teaching you that this snow is ok, but you're the dipsnows ACCEPTING that without question.
snowing destructive morons.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2022 01:04 PM |
|
|
Watch your language, fred. You are reading things into my post. "Kids" are not "children". You willfully interpret my words maliciously.
Kids must learn about stuff that they will be confronted with - like sex and drugs - BEFORE they can actually do anything wrong, so the right age is probably around 12-14, 13 being the age of choice here. Old enough to understand what's going on, but for the most part and overwhelming majority too young to already be beyond that.
Why would 7-year-olds learn everything about sex and drugs?
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 02, 2022 10:07 AM |
|
|
fred79 said:
so according to you, animals take illegal substances and children have sex. which tells me that you most likely don't have any issues with drag-queen story hour for the kids, either; since you're fine with strangers teaching children about sex...
So how is life at the backside of the moon?
You're so...how can I say this without accidentially insult you....you seem to live and think in the 19th century...
Teachers are not "strangers"...they are there to teach...be it maths, geographics, religion...or biology.
Same goes with doctors....they will teach you a lot about health and what to do and what not to do (to your body)...even so they are "strangers"....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted November 03, 2022 12:22 AM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 00:24, 03 Nov 2022.
|
Gnomes2169 said:
Tell me your biases without telling me your biases. 
I believe you overly underestimate how much the amount of drug addicts would skyrocket and how it would be out of control if you legalize the hard stuff to such a massive scale. Educating people to not abuse them? Good luck when you see how that went with alcohol.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 03, 2022 02:30 AM |
|
|
@JJ
There are a lot of claims wrapped up in one bag in your last post and I have no problem with some but your original position wasnt about education or controlled drug use environments such as the ones Gnomes is suggesting. You basically said that addiction was all about the person and the substance didnt matter at all, it could even be sugar. This simply isnt true. I feel weird explaining why you cant compare sugar addiction to heroin, the issue of addiction has more than one variable; the person, the environment and (needless to say!) the addictive substance itself. As I pointed out before, one legal painkiller causing controversy among dozens, is evidence of this alone. I really think this is an overwhelmingly obvious fact and I have nothing else to add.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted November 03, 2022 08:17 AM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 08:18, 03 Nov 2022.
|
artu said:
I have nothing else to add.
Skunk?
"Skunk refers to cannabis strains that are strong-smelling and have been likened to the smell of the spray from a skunk. These strains of cannabis are believed to have originated during the early 1990s in the United States prior to larger-scale development and popularization by Dutch growers. Just as with other strains of cannabis, skunk is commonly grown in controlled indoor environments under specialized grow lights, or in a greenhouse when full outdoor conditions are not suitable; skunk strains are hybrids of Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica." By Wikipedia
I smoked in Holland. Skunk is a common weed in Coffeeshop. I got a marginal high, when I smoked so many Skunk joints without knowing. I went to out to get a oxygen/air from Coffeeshop, and I watched police station and brothel, but Coffeeshop seller brought water bottle to me, I signed "NO", and I went in Coffeeshop. My guy asked what is happened? Highed! And guy explained to seller. Seller said we smoked two Skunk joint packs in a day. 14 Skunk joints! For me smoked in about 10. But if we meet in Germany, and we smoke Skunk?! The only think world.
@angelito
I think fred is violence..
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2022 09:10 AM |
|
|
artu said:
@JJ
There are a lot of claims wrapped up in one bag in your last post and I have no problem with some but your original position wasnt about education or controlled drug use environments such as the ones Gnomes is suggesting. You basically said that addiction was all about the person and the substance didnt matter at all, it could even be sugar. This simply isnt true. I feel weird explaining why you cant compare sugar addiction to heroin, the issue of addiction has more than one variable; the person, the environment and (needless to say!) the addictive substance itself. As I pointed out before, one legal painkiller causing controversy among dozens, is evidence of this alone. I really think this is an overwhelmingly obvious fact and I have nothing else to add.
No, artu. You simply ignore the facts.
Sugar is a pure "luxury food". It's not necessary for anything (especially notin refined form). It has no nutritional value. It's also something people don't like from birth, because the really sweet stuff is too sweet when you haven't tasted "sweet". It's a "learned taste", and many kids become addicted already in a very young age. And especially the cheap refined stuff has health consequences.
Sugar is, therefore, a drug, because it has no other value than "tastes nice" and "makes me feel good".
PAIN KILLER, on the other hand, have a function. That function is, to suppress or neurologically block PAIN. Most people taking those are getting them prescribed as a medicine to easen the burden of their life, either permanently or temporary, and those are OF COURSE addictive, and everyone knows it, too. A person suffering from chronical pain, once freed from that burden without suffering too severe side effects, will of course be immediately addicted, because most people will welcome a respite from pain, and once you know respite is available, it gets difficult to resist.
So that addiction - the permanently prescribed one - doesn't actually count. These people suffer from a permament ailment and exchange that for another. The thing is, that those who get these things only temporarily prescribed (because they had an accident or were shot or something like that) are pretty much left standing in the rain, because once it's time to get rid of the stuff, they would actually need serious help to do that. And that is extremely difficult because for people like that life as they knew it had ended with the accident or the wounding and that adds a new kind of pain and emptiness and that is covered by the drugs as well.
Now, what you simply ignore is, that no one takes drugs for nothing. There may be people who'll try everything, but most don't. And just because things aren't illegal anymore and available under special circumstances doesn't mean it's easy to get them, or cheap. But say there were a lot of people who'd want to try stuff out, out of interest, there still is something you just seem to not wanting to get:
You must like the effect of a drug to keep doing it. And people who like the effects of narcotics - rush of euphoria when shooting it up or not - have reason to like the side effects which invariably means they suffer from something, possibly their life.
Of course lots of teenagers "suffer" from their dreadful teenage life - but lots of teenagers already take pills as well.
Or stuff themselves with sugar and fast food.
Now, as I repeatedly said, when comparing the effects of drugs, what you cannot do is comparing the effect of a legal substance with an illegal one, because the illegal one basically means you don't consume ONE substance, but a lot of them in various compositions. You, of all persons, should understand that such comparisons are deeply unscientifical. You probably have read that heroin junkies don't die from the heroin but from the crap the dealers and pushers are diluting it with and that people could function and cope quite well with their habit provided they got the real thing.
Addiction is basically a curious thing, but I think, it's obvious that it's not the addiction that is the problem, but the negative side effects addictions have or may have. Everyone is addicted to something, say, to another person, which may become disastrous when they are not available anymore. "Addiction" simply means that someone or something is part of a person's life and said person would be really unhappy and suffer when it wasn't there anymore.
So that is 1) People are addicted to stuff that makes them happy. That is the mental side, the psychological one.
With drugs, there is 2) the physical effect, the withdrawal which, let's face it, even if it's hard is STILL not more than adding to the unhappiness of the psychological loss. You feel not only unhappy, you also feel miserable and suffer, and if you think of what narcotics actually do then it feels somewhat normal that you suffer from real pain when you stop doing them.
But it's the MIND that does the decisions. As long as your mind craves something, you are addicted, even if you get over the physical withdrawal. On the other hand, if you stop craving something, the withdrawal becomes something of a necessary parting pain to get rid of it.
Are some habits more difficult to get rid off than others? I'm not so sure about that. The soft drugs are obviously difficult to get rid of. I mean, how fat must someone become, how much suffering (and being fat comes with a lot of suffering) is necessary for a person to really get rid of their sugar and fast food addiction? It looks like a lot. Smoking? It seems not that difficult to stop, since the "withdrawal" seems more or less completely illusionary (a figment of the mind) and is probably comparable with a slight cold - but what about the high relapse rate? Alcohol? There is a reason people go the AA and consider themselves lifelong addicts.
In short, ALL addictions are hard to shed. After all, you are hooked. But you are not hooked because you LIKE what it gives to you and don't want to lose that. Not because the substance forces you.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 03, 2022 03:31 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:32, 03 Nov 2022.
|
Candy is luxury, sugar is there in fruits since the times we were gathering them. And sugar doesnt have a mental high affecting personality or a cold turkey withdrawal that people cant bear or an overdose death rate comparable to heroin or a comparable dose of harmless consumption or...
And you are once again trying to outsmart a very simple fact with so many words. The pain doesnt have to be permanent. Say, 50000 people have surgery or break their ankles, they are all prescribed five different brand of painkillers to ease the post-surgery effects or pain of the accident. Only one painkiller has a serious ratio of causing addiction after that post-surgery phase is over. Rest of the painkiller users move on with their lives in a few months, one group wants to keep having more. Once again, an extremely addictive person(ality) can indeed get hooked even to the least addictive painkiller but only one painkiller among the five brand has a serious ratio of creating addicts, even when this is not the case.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
purerogue
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2022 04:01 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Say, 50000 people have surgery or break their ankles
I read this as some kind of experiment to do with sugar
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2022 05:15 PM |
|
|
artu said:
And you are once again trying to outsmart a very simple fact .
No. It's you who's just deaf to any argument and instead tells always the same horror stories based on hollywood movies, don't seem to realize that ALL illegal drugs are dangerous first and foremost because they are ILLEGAL and therefore can and do contain anything and aren't reliable in their effect, and don't even acknowledge that the sugar in fruit is a very different beast than the refined stuff in candy and sweets, or start with "mental highs", as if a mental high was needed to become addicted to stuff.
Which means I'm kind sick of repeating the same things over and over again and get answers from hollywood movies.
I mean, don't you find it strange that all kind of crap is printed on cigarette packs, everyone knows that smoking is dangerous for your health, doesn't give a "mental high" and STILL over a billion people worldwide are smoking? That people can and do drink themselves into a stupor time and time again, although they KNOW that alcohol is dangerous and has severe consequences?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 03, 2022 05:42 PM |
|
|
What Hollywood movie, I already named you the drug and mentioned the controversy it caused, there are documentaries about this, not movies:
Link
What do you suppose people are talking about when they say things like "although the extended-release formulation is supposed to make OxyContin less addictive than oxycodon, using it in a way in which it was not intended increases the risk of addiction" and so on, the people or the substance?
And you are deliberitaley dodging the point now, I already emphasized that an addictive personality can get addicted to any stuff, not just ones with a mental high but that is a different kind of addiction. Not all addictions are the same, not in terms of intensity, not in terms of how and where they affect your brain. Hard drugs reshape your brain chemistry in a way sugar dont. And in this regard, which is the context, natural sugar and industrial sugar are not different, industrial sugar is harmful to your body but it doesnt affect your brain arywhere close to heroin does. It's like comparing the effects of a small river wave and an ocean tsunami, saying they are both water hitting you.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2022 09:45 PM |
|
|
Look, what you don't see is that this is all completely beside the point, because it's not the drug that makes people addicted, it is the person who WANTS the drug, because they like the effect. And you would actually know that if you read the article you linked to.
You would also know that when you would just stop a minute and think. If sugar isn't as addictive as, say, heroin, if nicotine isn't as addictive as Oxy - then why the hell are so many people eating and drinking so much sugar even though they get fat and ill and laughed at and why are so many peope smoking, even though they suffer from all kinds of bad effects?
Because it doesn't matter how addictive a substance is, since it's not the substance, but the person who craves the effect of the substance.
That article you linked says, basically, yes, Oxy works as intended, but not when the pill is crushed and snorted because then what is intended to work over a long time works immediately. (That's basically the same effect than with Heroin, which was adminitered orally, but the effect is stronger when snorted and yet stronger when injected; it is also a difference whether you drink a beer, slowly, or whether you drink hard liquor; or when you consume alcohol in combination with sugar).
I mean - why would you do that? Because the pill is smiling at you and says, crush and snort me? If people would take the medicine as intended, all was good - but they don't. People are supposed to take Aspirin with a liquid, but there are those who eat them, chew them, because the effect is somewhat different then. There are those who combine different stuffs (that shouldn't be combined).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 04, 2022 12:11 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:27, 04 Nov 2022.
|
I read the article, of course. You first claimed addiction is ALL psychological and now you say it doesnt matter how addictive the substance is, which is actually admiting there is a difference between substances. It is actually you who dont see that you take a point a which is valid under normal circumstances, to an unpropotional level so it turns into something wrong. It's like the difference between saying "education matters" and "it's all about education."
I don't deny the psychological aspect of the equation, you deny the material aspect. Here, another link among hundreds, I especially pick this one because it also emphasizes the importance of the psychological aspect in the beginning.
Link
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 04, 2022 02:56 AM |
|
|
Galaad said:
Gnomes2169 said:
Tell me your biases without telling me your biases.
I believe you overly underestimate how much the amount of drug addicts would skyrocket and how it would be out of control if you legalize the hard stuff to such a massive scale.
And I think you vastly overestimate how much laws combat use rates in general. Could there be a large increase in drug users and abusers once certain drugs are legalized? Yeah, of course there could be… but there isn’t much of a causative link between the correlation of legalizing a substance and an increase in that substance’s use. There are studies that exist which show that Cannabis use goes up when it becomes legal, for example, but those studies are based around people who self-identify as pot smokers, which people are disincentivized from doing when they could go to jail for doing so. They also run into a problem where the number being used for users pre-legalization is based in part on estimates based on incarceration rates for the drug use, which makes it stupidly hard to actually know how much the baseline use rate was when the drug was illegal, since police estimates and efficacy are… pretty garbage for a lot of things.
All to say, the rate increase for self-identifying addicts could very easily have just been too low in the first place. It’s equally as, if nor more, likely that the people who wanted to use weed were doing so when it was illegal, and that the law being changed just lets them do it openly. And it’s hard to think this wouldn’t hold true for other illicit, cheaply produced drugs, like crack. The people who want to use it, are using it regardless of legality, and making it legal or illegal will not change the number of users significantly… it will only make it cheaper or more expensive, safer or more dangerous, a revenue generator or a black market staple.
As an aside: This is true for every product and service; abortions, firearms, drugs, medicine, cars, tools, etc. Making products and services illegal is just codifying a moral judgement of people who use that thing into law, and by making that moral judgement into law, allows citizens in a state to judge, condemn, jail and discriminate against the people who use a service or have an abusive and unhealthy habit. The harm caused by this is often seen as a feature, not a bug, but it is still a society-level harm being brought against the citizens of a state by its government. Whether you think this harm is acceptable or not on a case-by-case basis is up to you, I think that trucks simply shouldn’t see civilian use if you aren’t shipping or hauling anything for example, but make no mistake, it is a moral judgement of the people using/ possessing a thing, regardless of what a risk/cost analysis might tell you.
But back to your post…
Galaad said:
Educating people to not abuse them? Good luck when you see how that went with alcohol.
Let’s compare alcohol to crack/ heroine, shall we?
From a historical/ cultural stance:
*Alcohol is one of the most important cornerstones of cultural development. While one could say that civilization started when the fossil records show human (and human ancestors) with healed broken legs, it’s a widely accepted sign that agrarian civilizations really began to boom with fermentation. Alcohol was used for effectively everything; as a way to disinfect water and wounds, as a way to preserve food (and in grain-heavy dark drinks as a food itself), as payment for the carpenters that created the pyramids, etc. As agrarian societies began to advance technologically, alcohol evolved to change with it, with every culture developing its own style of drinks, first at a town level, then city, then territory, and then at a national scale. The amount of emotional, cultural and societal baggage that comes with alcohol cannot be overstated: While it is now a luxury item, it’s one with a legacy almost as old as human civilization itself, and its use has been seen as a boon for so long that it’s an expected presence at any social gathering.
*Crack and heroine are opiates that were designed to fill a niche of anti-depressants and painkillers for people who were poor. Crack was also the poor-man’s version of cocaine, they were and are effectively the same drug, one is just in powder form and the other is a crystal. While they are prevalent in gang and ghetto culture, this has more to do with those subculture’s lack of access to more socially accepted methods of pain and depression management than it does show it to be a key part of society at large. Put simply: If the users weren’t poor and could afford real medicines, they wouldn’t buy these drugs, they’d use actual anti-depressants and pain killers.
From a abuse/harm stance:
*Alcohol is destructive to your body, mind and relationships if overused. This has been known for a long, long time, with drunkards and wastrels being shown scorn and being universally shunned outside of some particularly hedonistic wine cults that praised the inebriation as communion with their god(s). But this damage is typically slow-acting, over the course of years if not decades. It takes extremely hard abuse to cause immediate harm, and when harm does occur, it is often not going to show as physical disfigurement or other obviously scarring signs: You might have a flush face and get a pot belly from your booze, but the other damage will be internal. There’s also plenty of evidence that a little bit of certain kinds of alcohol can be healthy for you, depending on your diet, and that fact is rather commonly known. So abusers can still get their friends to go out and drink with them, even if their friends know that they will be blackout-drunk by the end of the night, without their friends thinking that having a few drinks will be bad for them.
*Crack and heroine break your body in obvious ways with their abuse. Cracks and damage to the nose that turn into scars if snorted, muscle atrophy and discoloration of the skin, reduced ability to heal, loss of teeth and hair, shuddering in limbs and radical shifts in personality even while not high, etc. It doesn’t take long for these signs to start showing either, and these drugs are known to be the cause of that harm. People are vain, and knowing that using something will physically disfigure them is… well, it’s a lot to swallow (or snort/ inject in this case, haha).
From an accessibility standpoint:
*Alcohol is everywhere, including so-called “dry counties.” If you want it and can legally drink, you can find it and buy it. You can take it home with you to drink, you can host parties where it’s expected that some alcoholic beverages are present, you can go to establishments which exist solely to sell you booze, etc. These drug is everywhere and it is not taboo. Getting alcohol is easy.
*Crack and heroine are not common. You have to get them from specific people, in specific places, and those people and places are extremely freaking shady. Even if what I propose were to be implemented today, that would still be part of the cultural legacy for decades. The legalization I mentioned above wouldn’t so much change how it’s restricted in sales, you still have to go to specific people in specific places after all, but it would change who is giving it to you (a licensed retailer/ medical practitioners) and where you use it (in a sterile and safe environment, with staff on hand to reduce risk). This is a greatly limiting factor to accessibility. Getting crack and heroine is work.
From a “how do people start the habit” view:
*For alcohol, they go out drinking with friends. Or family. Or to celebrate an event. Or because they are sad. It’s an innocuous, socially acceptable activity and reason that morphs into something self-destructive.
*For crack or heroine, there are a few different starting points for the habit: 1) They were put into a much softer drug (like cannabis) by a dealer in order to get a client hooked on a much more addictive substance, which is called ‘spiking’ and is how weed got the reputation is has for being a gateway drug. 2) It’s a bootleg medication for people who were hooked on painkillers or who can no longer afford anti-depressants and desperately need something to numb their pain or make them feel something. 3) Very rarely a high-functioning addict will be able to convince their friends to experiment with the drugs, but that’s typically going to occur while the pair/group is already using softer stuff, like weed or alcohol, and isn’t much present outside of parties.
So for that comparison:
It feels flawed and not particularly relevant to compare alcohol to crack or heroine. They are incredibly different from every standpoint, and for a variety of reasons what happens with one substance can’t really be applied to what happens with the other. A comparison to, say, Opium dens might have been more valid (especially since crack houses are literally a thing), but opium dens as they existed way back when could never exist in the same way today.
So the fact that alcohol abuse exists doesn’t feel like a solid justification to not legalize, standardize and regulate hard drugs. They are not the same substances, they exist for different reasons, and people do not get into them for the same reasons. It’s not a lack of education that gets people into them (though the US education system for health and drugs is a friggen joke) to the point where education is nearly irrelevant; It’s entirely down to social situations, relationships and economic means.
So… yeah. I’m really not worried about crack or heroine suddenly becoming as popular as booze if they become legal, regulated drugs. They just don’t have the same cultural importance or social pressure as a mainline drug like weed, tobacco or alcohol could bring.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2022 08:10 AM |
|
|
artu said:
I read the article, of course. You first claimed addiction is ALL psychological and now you say it doesnt matter how addictive the substance is, which is actually admiting there is a difference between substances. It is actually you who dont see that you take a point a which is valid under normal circumstances, to an unpropotional level so it turns into something wrong. It's like the difference between saying "education matters" and "it's all about education."
I don't deny the psychological aspect of the equation, you deny the material aspect. Here, another link among hundreds, I especially pick this one because it also emphasizes the importance of the psychological aspect in the beginning.
Link
The material aspect is UNIMPORTANT.
Look. People drive cars. Is it the car's fault when there is a bend you are supposed to take with 60 - warning sign - but people take it with 100 for kicks and crash? Does it make a difference whether the car can go 180 or 250 max? No, it doesn't. It's not the car's fault.
The differentiation that is made in addictiveness is not made by me, because clearly it's misleading.
Heroin has a higher addictiveness than alcohol? Well, who cares? The question is who would get off on it and WHY?
I mean, see it this way: there are a lot of people who absolutely HATE what larger amounts of alcohol would do to them, after experiencing it once and would never ever drink much again. Conversely, there are those who "shoot themselves into oblivion" (because oblivion is bliss). And that's also what pain killers including Heroin are all about, and Heroin is the stuff that doesn an excellent job in that regard.
The simple thing is, if you don't suffer from any "pain" (and not necessarily physical pain), a pain killer does the wrong thing to you, The euphoric rush of the shooting doesn't last long, what lasts is "blissful numbness without a care".
On the other hand, if you suffer from pain, as long as you do that stuff is obviously addicted. But to cure from addiction (and that's true for alcohol as well) you must cure the pain first, which is obviously quite costly and lengthy and sometimes impossible.
And lastly, and that's something you really should spare a thought of - as I already said, everyone is addicted to SOMEthing, because addiction is basically nothing more than the conviction that your happiness depends on something (or someone). So the question is only, how damaging an addiction is.
If you would compare alcohol addiction (alcohol is legal and therefore the only damaging component is the alcohol itself) with heroin addiction (provided the heroin was legal and therefore the only damaging component) - what do you think would be more damaging? Would there even be a difference? And when you compared that with a GAMBLING addiction?
So. The substance doesn't matter as long as it doesn't make you a zombie with the first and second try.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2022 12:28 PM |
|
|
@ jj: yes, i should watch my language, because that's what's important here. promote something else destructive and do your part to destroy society while telling me to "watch my language"; and see how you're viewed by anyone sane.
hey, i know. by your kind's logic, we should make murder legal too. because, you know, people are gonna do that anyway, right? herp derp.
it was you who used the term "kids", btw, so don't bat your eyelashes and act like it was a stretch for me to misunderstand. next time, use the proper term to avoid being misunderstood; so adults can properly communicate with you.
angelito said:
So how is life at the backside of the moon?
You're so...how can I say this without accidentially insult you....you seem to live and think in the 19th century...
Teachers are not "strangers"...they are there to teach...be it maths, geographics, religion...or biology.
Same goes with doctors....they will teach you a lot about health and what to do and what not to do (to your body)...even so they are "strangers"....
for someone who doesn't post but once in a blue moon, you should probably stick to not posting at all. the argument wasn't about teachers teaching anything, but teachers teaching children about sex. try and keep up, or just get some more experience with reading comprehension.
and speaking of reading comprehension, weren't you supposedly a lawyer, or am i confusing you with some other previous hc moderator? because if you were/are the lawyer, and you lack simple reading comprehension, well, i sure feel bad for whoever you represent(ed).
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 04, 2022 12:39 PM |
|
|
|
I think OmegaDestroyer is the lawyer.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted November 04, 2022 01:40 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 13:46, 04 Nov 2022.
|
Too bad I can't +QP you Gnomes, even though I disagree completely with your post. 
(I'll see if I get the time to reply).
fred79 said:
so adults can properly communicate with you.
Right, because insulting the hell out of anyone sharing an opposite view point from you is totally the adult way to handle a conversation.
Yes, Omega is the lawyer.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2022 04:03 PM |
|
|
fred79 said:
@ jj: yes, i should watch my language, because
hey, i know. by your kind's logic, we should make murdersuicide legal too.
Oh, wait, suicide isn't considered a crime anymore in many countries, the US and Germany among them.
Why were drugs illegal again?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
