|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
posted November 04, 2022 11:45 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
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).
I will accept gentle pats on the butt, a “Good job kid,” and a mod hat as an alternative form of payment. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 11:59 AM |
|
|
fred79 said:
@ 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).
I am very well aware about the current topic and I follow this conversation quite a long time. And yes, I ahve understood what you meant with teachers teaching about sex. Why is my post not accurate? Why is it not appropriate for teachers telling children about sex? Especially when it comes to prevention, it is very important children learn about that very early. I don't think it is a good thing, 14 year old girls run around pregnant. Sadly, the majority of the parents miss out this part of nurture way too often. I bet, not half of the active members here recieved their main information about sex from their parents...
So in my opinion, it is better for children to recieve those information from someone professional, than from so called "friends", who have no clue either...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 12:34 PM |
|
|
|
The only realistic conversation about sex with teenagers is requiring they are back home before 7 pm.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 01:24 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
... realistic ...
lol
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 01:43 PM |
|
|
angelito said:
I am very well aware about the current topic and I follow this conversation quite a long time. And yes, I ahve understood what you meant with teachers teaching about sex. Why is my post not accurate? Why is it not appropriate for teachers telling children about sex? Especially when it comes to prevention, it is very important children learn about that very early. I don't think it is a good thing, 14 year old girls run around pregnant. Sadly, the majority of the parents miss out this part of nurture way too often. I bet, not half of the active members here recieved their main information about sex from their parents...
So in my opinion, it is better for children to recieve those information from someone professional, than from so called "friends", who have no clue either...
"PROFESSIONAL" sex ed teachers...
for CHILDREN.
and i thought jj was bad. 
look, you can't understand WHY your previous post isn't accurate, even though i spelled it out for you; and you believe, well, the above. i think i'll call this argument done.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 04:08 PM |
|
|
I got to thinking.
So in fred's world drugs are pushed by the Jewish globalist world conspiracy and all this all to liberal early sex education nonsense is as well.
Which would logically mean that rock'n'roll must be part of an unholy Jewish globalist world conspiracy as well, since it's obviously selling the glories of sex and drugs to kids.
Like in that shocking Rolling Stones song, Stray Cat Blues, in which Jagger sings,
Quote:
I can see that you're fifteen years old
No I don't want your I.D.
And I can see that you're so far from home
But it's no hanging matter
It's no capital crime
In life concerts he sang thirteen instead of fifteen, and switched only later, when the stones were a gigantic tour axt to an US-market-friendly sixteen
And just think of this mind-boggling trivia: Bill Wyman, the bass player of the stones got married, aged 52, again in 1989, an 18-year-old who he had had sex with, since she was 14. After their separation two years later and their divorce in 1993 Wymans 30-year old son out of his first marriage married that girls mother, aged 46 who was, technically his step-grandma...
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 06:56 PM |
|
|
jj said:
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
"More addictive" directly means that the substance has more control over your mind and your pattern of thinking. How and why is already explained in the link. Cars dont have physical interference with your brain. That is the whole point, if the substance made zero difference, it wouldnt be called more addictive in the first place. You speak of human mind/psyche, as if it is some metaphysical, isolated entity. It is not.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 08:16 PM |
|
|
Let me repeat for the umptieth time that "more addictive" mans NOTHING. Because a drug is either attractive for a person after they try it or it's not. Keep in mind drugs cost money. And drugs are dangerous.
If it's NOT attractive, more addictive means nothing, because people won't continue to take it. Why waste money and risk consequences when the efect isn't appealing=
If ii IS appealing for a person, they will probably keep at it and eventually become addicted - or not, depending on how often it is used, which again is a subjective thing.
That's it. More addictive in that case also doesn't mean anything.
In short, more addictive is an eyewash.
The interesting thing is, that you even turn to this nonsense, as if a CERTAIN addictiveness was okay while a somehat "more addictive" addictiveness was not. What kind of nonsense is that?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 09:33 PM |
|
|
It doesnt mean nothing just because you wish it so.
And I never said about any addiction that they are okay. I said some are more managable and less dangerous than others. So, I said some are worse. But while defending how there is no difference between sugar and heroin, I guess, the point got lost on you.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 10:07 PM |
|
|
There, you doing it again. Comparing a legal thing with an illegal thing. You could only compare it, if both were illegal or both were legal.
And you actually have no point either. And there are more articles like this.
Actually it's pretty obvious when you think about the fact that lots of smokers who want to come off it substitute cigarettes with candy and become fat (and addicted).
Now imagine sweets were illegal. Have you any idea how many kids would become candy junkies?
Is sugar better managable? I don't think so (again, under equal conditions). Because sugar (the refined stuff) hasn't really been checked, except by "crazy weirdos" who habe strange theories about the connection between sugar and allergies and certain diseases.
Heroin, on the other hand, is a pretty perfect product that does exactly what it was supposed to. And that there is a flash when you inject it? I mean, come on, who would actually try that, if it wanÄt known meanwhile? Would anyone start to try and dissolve aspirin and shoot that? I mean, you CAN do it. It obviously helps a lot better against migraine.
In any case - you are wrong. Because YOU want to believe something. But reality looks different. There have always been drugs and always been addicts. And today, between alcohol, cigarettes, sugar/fast food and prescription pills (not just opioids, also anti-depressants, muscle relaxants and probably a couple others I just don't think of right now) a very high percentage of people are addicted anyway.
In Britain heroin is given out to addicts. IN Switherland small amounts of Heroin are not illegal to have. In Orgeon as well.
Get real.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 05, 2022 11:59 PM |
|
|
Again, when you read a sentence like "sugar can be as addictive as cocaine" it verifies my point, not yours. Because it indicates there are degrees of addictiveness and cocaine and sugar match in this regard. Sugar may be addictive as cocaine but it sure isnt as dangerous as heroin. Or are you going to claim that parents are rewarding their children (according to your link) with something as dangerous as heroin?
You also seem to forget, in the early 20th century, heroin was legal and it wasnt comparable to sugar back then either. In fact, it was outlawed because of the e problems it caused. And even if you legalize all the subtances in the world, their addiction levels will not be the same, neither the content of the addiction. If Churchill used heroin as much as he drank, he couldnt have been Churchill, even if it was legal.
And I never said addicts dont exist, so I have no idea why you are trying to prove they do.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2022 08:59 AM |
|
|
You just don't get it. And you are wrong.
And OF COURSE I claim that parents (and everyone else) rewarding children with products that contain refined sugar is handing them a drug; a drug I will add, that will make A PART of them addicted and others - not so much )and part of it won't like it at all).
Basically the same thing with EVERY drug. Alcohol is freely available and handed out at every opportunity. And PART of the people will become addicts (in different ways, some managing, some worse, some lost), while others - not so much (and part of it won't like it at all).
Smoking - same thing, although I'd say that the part-time smoker part is smaller than with drink and sugar.
And then - Heroin. Do you really claim that if Heroin was REALLY legal and syringes with shots were offered around, everyyone would take one, take out their jacket, roll up their shirt arm, pull a rubber tube round the upper arm, shoot up and relish the flash and then be out of it the next hour or two?
A ridiculous idea and something that would NEVER happen. Because heroin and pain killers/opioids in general are no party drug. It isn't taken by people who want to have fun. And everyone in search of FUN would find that drug unappealing and rather do something else.
And Heroin wasn't outlawed because of the problems it caused - that doesn't really describe it, because actually it didn't cause problems as long as it was used as intended. It came in use a couple years before 1900, but was thought of as a new wonderdrug and was not only administered as something against pain and cough, but was prescribed with 40 other indications (that is, it was prescribed freely).
It didn't take long to see that people who used it over a long period developed a tolerance (not an addiction) fast (faster than with morphine), so they rapidly needed more to get the same effect.
The addiction angle came when the drug was sold over the counter in the US, simply because in the US there already WERE a lot of morphine and opium addicts, and since Heroin was LEGAL and CHEAP, it didn't take the junkies long to find out that this stuff did a great job, when injected.
Incidentally, same story as now, just the other way round. Addicts who don't get their prescription pills anymore switch to illegal heroin.
Anyway. Get it into your brain. Whether you become addicted to something or not isn't about the drug. It's about your problems, your personality and the effect a drug has. Do develop a heroin habit a person must be deeply troubled (on a subjective level), otherwise the relief that comes with the drug could not be appreciated. Because the flash of the shot is just one short moment. The actual effect of the drug lasts.
Would you drink, if drinking meant downing a bottle of vodka in one go, get a flash from it and then be out cold more or less for a couple of hours, if that being out cold would be something you wouldn't like? (Which is incidentally the case with real alcoholics - permanent state of half-oblivion.)
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 06, 2022 12:31 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:39, 06 Nov 2022.
|
Nope, how fast and severe an addiction becomes an addiction is a combination of the individual's personality, psychological state, environmental/cultural factors and of course, the subtance itself. And it's not just about how easy you'll get hooked but how the addiction will play out. If you smoke for instance, you will probably get related diseases after a certain age but other than that, if you put aside the social stigma in some countries like U.S.A., your mind and reasoning wont be affected other than wanting to smoke, you wont get high or drunk. (Hence, before the medical studies that turned it into a culturally less acceptable phenomenon, everybody used to smoke, doctors even recommended it for avoiding stress. Not becuase everybody's psychological condition was different, because it was more acceptable. And once they did, they got addicted to nicotine. But it's relatively an easier substance to quit.) You can blame the parents about the sugar but they wouldnt certainly do it if it was exactly the same as heroin, otherwise, they must be the stupidest parents to walk the earth.
You are just oversimplifying a complex issue with many parameters and ignoring all the links with information that directly contradicts you. So I'll leave you to it.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2022 02:30 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I got to thinking...
lol, no you didn't.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2022 02:44 PM |
|
|
Man, you are so godawfully wrong about smoking, it's not even funny anymore.
And just to make that clear, NOTHING you are addicted to is easy to quit - otherwise you were not addicted to it. Obviously. Whether you manage to quit or not, as long as the reasons are valid for a person WHY they were addicted in the first place they will ALWAYS be addicted. They just manage to withstand their craving.
Quote:
You can blame the parents about the sugar but they wouldnt certainly do it if it was exactly the same as heroin, otherwise, they must be the stupidest parents to walk the earth.
Except, that parents DID give their children heroin some 100 years ago. Orally. And not for fun. If candy had to be injected, candy was dead. So I wonder what the point is you try making?
@ fred
Lol, fred, I don't think you are in any position to assess that.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 06, 2022 03:54 PM |
|
|
I don't know if you ever smoked but I did, I still do, only with alcohol since 20 years or so. And there is nothing historically wrong with anything I said. Once again, you turn it into something binary (hard to quit or not) when it is not. Personally, for me, it isnt that hard not to smoke for days when I dont drink. I know it is harder for some people but it is not the hardest habit to quit and you dont puke and shiver or anything like that.
And yes, some people gave heroin to their kids when it was something new and it was sold without a prescription, when the kids were sick, occassionaly, they also used it themselves, they also bought radium and drank it, radioactivity was also considered a nice beverage when it first came out. But the situation didnt stick, did it. Had candy been the same as heroin, it couldnt be such a regular thing to give the children all the time for so long. Again, you take two situations so different in detail, cherry-pick one shallow similarity binarily and then talk as if the situations are identical.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2022 05:13 PM |
|
|
It's the other way round. You just fail to accept, that mainlining stuff is something that just isn't done "lightly". Popping something, drinking something, that's easy. Smoking is more difficult because inhaling isn't done otherwise either, except with asthma. But it's nothing compared to INJECTING.
Someone who is prepared to INJECT a substance must be pretty desparate one way or another (and be it only to prove something, but then you are on a very dangerous course anyway).
On the other hand, taken orally, heroin is just a medical drug, and a very good one at that.
And you continue to interpret what I say the way you want it to. I didn't say SMOKING is hard to quit. I said, when you are ADDICTED it's hard to quit, no matter the addiction, because otherwise you are either not addicted or have firm control over it. Where you are wrong with regard to smoking is that you become addicted to nicotine. Technically and in a sense, that might be true, but psychologically - and that's the decisive thing - what you become addicted to is the ability to stop the very, very slight inconvenience of feeling the very, very slight withdrawal effect that already comes a couple minutes after stubbing out a cigarette. Subjectively this feels like an improvement. It feels god to light and smoke the same way it feels good to scratch an itch.
That's what makes smoking so addictive. That's why smoking is so prevalent with high-stress jobs. Smoking feels like relaxing, because you do in fact relax by scrathching an itch.
I smoked for 30 years. Haven't smoked tobaccoc for over 20. Too stupid an addiction.
Friend of mine, smoker, decided for a long time ago to smoke tobacco only in connection with dope. Ended up with being stoned way too often, after a time.
Is comparable with your situation. I wonder whether your drinking habits changed, and if yes, whether it's simply due to the fact that the more you drink the more you can allow yourself to smoke. The next question would be whether the amount you smoke when you drink has increased.Quote:
I know it is harder for some people but it is not the hardest habit to quit and you dont puke and shiver or anything like that.
. As I said, whether it's hard to quit something depends on the fact how much you would miss this. Since you smoke when you drink you are addicted. You'd miss something if you suddenly couldn't smoke when drinking, and the question would be how much.
In short, you don't know how hard it would be for you to actually quit smoking, since you do smoke. Not smoking permanently isn't the same as not smoling.
Ask yourself, how many people you know would actually try and shoot something into their venes, how many people would inhale something and how many people would eat or drink something.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 07, 2022 04:47 AM |
|
|
So, you started out by saying that the substance can be anything and it's all about the psychology and holes in your life and now the biggest difference is all phsycal, injecting, inhaling, drinking... People drink alcohol and you also said alcohol can be just as bad as heroin though. Those pills that turn out to be more addictive than other painkillers arent injected either. And how about weed brownies, are they better than inhaling joints?
And even if we accept there is a pychological aspect about the difference between injecting and drinking etc, which makes sense as just one of the parameters, why should this indicate in anyway that the subtance is not a parameter and everything is about psychology. Nothing you talk is directly relevant to your original claim. And we already have three links that compare the addiction levels of the substances which is directly relevant because it clearly indicates it is not just all about psychology.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2022 08:25 AM |
|
|
The difference in intake is the trying-out-hurdle. Eating, drinking is the lowest, and everything offered in that form is fair game for everyone TO TRY. With sugar and alcohol taste plays a role. Remember the alco-pop wave? When every kid would drink some long-drink with an alcohol content like beer and a lot of sugar and lots got hooked so that this was moved to 18 years fast? Prime example. Tastes nice, gives a nice buzz, is consumed with friends on parties. Vodka-Red-Bull.
Then smoking. More difficult. Not regularly done. First time smoking means coughing. Doesn't taste nice. Hurts in the lung. First time inhaling you get a bit dizzy. Some will feel sick. Higher hurdle, but at a time it was accepted and lots of people would smoke - it couldn'be that bad in that case and there had to be a hang to it, so if you manage smoking to belong to the cool guys, right?
Injecting? That's invasive. Lots of people are terrified of syringes. In public? isn't seen. That is a VERY high hurdle to jump over.
Now the thing is obviously, if the initial hurdle is high, people who jump over that are kind of likely to keep at it, otherwise they wouldn't have jumped in the first place, since most people today will know what to expect. But you can't TRY heroin casually.
The point is, with alcohol and sugar you can expect a 100% quote of people trying it out, and since there are so many different forms with different tastes, everyone would probably find something to their taste - but not everyone ends up addicted. With smoking the quote may be 100% as well for at least one try, and e have an addiction quota of just over 20% in Germany (higher in Eastern Europe, I believe).
Heroin? What do you think, how many would try it? And how many would stay at it?
Now, let me try to make something clear to you. There is no such thing a "more addictive". That's the same as "more pregnant". Everything can be addictive (take adrenaline junkies), whether it is or not, is exclusively dependent on the PERSON. Not on the thing. The thing itself has only side effects that come with addiction, and those may be better or worse, but comparing those is somewhat apples and oranges. And that is so because of what I said earlier. With alcohol you can say, okay everyone has contact and it's completely legal, so what you see is what you get. However, you don't see what you get. Because addiction has many different forms. Take the binge drinkers who regularly, every couple of weeks or so go on a drinking binge 2 or 3 days? Addicted? Harmful?
Then there are the controlled alcoholics who drink regularly, but not too much. Addicted? Sure. Harmful? In the long run, probably.
Same with smokers.
And heroin (and pain killers)? Not everyone tries it, but you can expect that those who try are highly likely to keep at it because there is no pretending. It's a hard drug and everyone knows that.
Again. The drugs are what they are. It's the people who see something in them and build their life on them.
You didn't answer the question, so I take it you have a problem with looking halfway objectively at your own vices. You have to give up this opinion that soft drugs are no problem, but hard ones are the devil. ALL drugs are a problem, and the softer they are the more addictive they are because they are no big deal, aren't they?
That's why they all have to be decriminalized and be part of the education, as with sex and other important stuff.
I mean, even the statistics are wrong. You can read all about the numbers of people who died from an overdose, willingly or unwillingly, but you cannot read those numbers for alcohol. You can all read about junkies robbing people or houses, drug-related crimes, but what about alcohol-related crimes? About alcohol-related deaths? About deaths due to overweight?
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted November 07, 2022 09:56 AM |
|
|
Hi!
Party was so cool.. Yesterday I'm at home also HC..
Ok I quoted from JJ "decriminalized and be part of the education". Our Finnish youth Coalition Party supported everyone drugs are decriminalized. But our Green League supported only legal Cannabis. So in Finland, rich and educated Blue, and liberal Green got a place in parliament, I don't think so random, but they can work it with..
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
