Social Mumford and "Recreational" Drugs

[KermitJagger]

Yeah, that'll work, I'm sure.

Worked for me with my dad, he had a similar attitude towards drugs being a child of the 60's and was honest with me from the get go. I've dabbled but never had any issues because of it, and the people I do know who did develop issues either came from families with poor parental structure and support network or a generally overbearing parental structure.

Not true. I would.

Also, narcotics are not bad for you because they are banned, they are banned because they are bad for you. To argue that narcotics usage is all fine and only an issue because of societal stigma naively ignores the damage and death that these chemicals plague upon individuals and society. You can argue that it's a good thing to increase access to narcotics, but despite all the effort made today the suffering from drug use is utterly tragic. Increasing that suffering in service of pithy arguments crouched in the language of Libertarianism has real consequences, moral for those that make it and tragic for those that suffer from it.

To argue they're illegal because they're bad for you falls to water almost instantly when you look at what is legal. Alcohol, cigarettes and prescription medication are all far more damaging than most illicit substances are in their pure form yet they're still distributed. We allow pharmaceutical forms of meth to be given to children in the form of ADD medication, and we allow a massive number of hugely addictive opiate derived pain killers to be given out for anything. SSRIs and anti depressants are incredibly unnatural for the brain and treat symptoms over causes but they're still readily available. Clearly legality does not depend on effect.

Ice is an absolute plague and the most damaging illicit substance and it is itself a product of over regulation and prohibition of cocaine. Most issues of abuse also fall to impurity and additives that are put into these drugs by the underground distributors and criminal syndicates that profit from it.

Regardless, we're off the subject.

 

[The German Hunter]

Nothing wrong with a dabble in my opinion, in fact I quite like it.
Disclaimer- I may not be an AFL footballer

 

[arupist]

Worked for me with my dad, he had a similar attitude towards drugs being a child of the 60's and was honest with me from the get go. I've dabbled but never had any issues because of it, and the people I do know who did develop issues either came from families with poor parental structure and support network or a generally overbearing parental structure.

.....

Ice is an absolute plague and the most damaging illicit substance and it is itself a product of over regulation and prohibition of cocaine. Most issues of abuse also fall to impurity and additives that are put into these drugs by the underground distributors and criminal syndicates that profit from it.

Regardless, we're off the subject.

I am genuinely happy that it worked for you. The issue is more far-reaching, though, than just watching a Mumford video and saying live and let live. Not saying that is where you are coming from because you seem genuinely concerned about Ice. Coke, to me is in the same bucket. I have spoken to dozens of cops and juvenile justice professionals and the problem is very, very real. As soon as kids get to secondary school they are vulnerable. Many are on some form of drugs, pills included, by the time they are 13. THIRTEEN. Couple this with social media pressures and it is a recipe for disaster.

And yes, Ned, call me hysterical.


PS Sorry Eldo. Must have been in the middle of responding when you moved everything.

 

[eldorado]

Moved everything here...

A worthy topic, but not for our trade thread.

BTW, 100% agree with Ned.

 

[arupist]

not in the pr0n industry

Haha, I guess it depends on how much you love your work.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I am genuinely happy that it worked for you. The issue is more far-reaching, though, than just watching a Mumford video and saying live and let live. Not saying that is where you are coming from because you seem genuinely concerned about Ice. Coke, to me is in the same bucket. I have spoken to dozens of cops and juvenile justice professionals and the problem is very, very real. As soon as kids get to secondary school they are vulnerable. Many are on some form of drugs, pills included, by the time they are 13. THIRTEEN. Couple this with social media pressures and it is a recipe for disaster.

And yes, Ned, call me hysterical.


PS Sorry Eldo. Must have been in the middle of responding when you moved everything.

Copy, paste and delete is your friend.

 

[Yardie]

Nothing wrong with a dabble in my opinion, in fact I quite like it.
Disclaimer- I may not be an AFL footballer

You have to be careful once you start it can be a slippery slope before you know it you'll be doing it in the streets.




We are talking about clogging aren't we?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Worked for me with my dad, he had a similar attitude towards drugs being a child of the 60's and was honest with me from the get go. I've dabbled but never had any issues because of it, and the people I do know who did develop issues either came from families with poor parental structure and support network or a generally overbearing parental structure.



To argue they're illegal because they're bad for you falls to water almost instantly when you look at what is legal. Alcohol, cigarettes and prescription medication are all far more damaging than most illicit substances are in their pure form yet they're still distributed. We allow pharmaceutical forms of meth to be given to children in the form of ADD medication, and we allow a massive number of hugely addictive opiate derived pain killers to be given out for anything. SSRIs and anti depressants are incredibly unnatural for the brain and treat symptoms over causes but they're still readily available. Clearly legality does not depend on effect.

Ice is an absolute plague and the most damaging illicit substance and it is itself a product of over regulation and prohibition of cocaine. Most issues of abuse also fall to impurity and additives that are put into these drugs by the underground distributors and criminal syndicates that profit from it.

Regardless, we're off the subject.

a) That narcotics are bad for you is undeniable. That they carry a heavy burden on society is also undeniable. That they destroy lives and cause genuine, grievous misery is also undeniable. If you're interested in arguments beyond Vox, then there is much to learn. How about this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27610582

Patients with these SUDs [substance abuse addictions] had higher prevalence of major medical conditions than non-SUD patients (alcohol use disorders, 85.3% vs 55.3%; cannabis use disorders, 41.9% vs 23.0%; and opioid use disorders, 44.9% vs 26.1%; all P < 0.001). Patients with these SUDs also had higher disease burden than non-SUD patients; patients with opioid use disorders (M = 0.48; SE = 1.46) had particularly high disease burden (M = 0.23; SE = 0.09; P < 0.001).

b) In fact, substance abuse is the number one harmful factor in injury, disability and death. It seems downright inhumane to minimalise the fate that so many suffer when faced with addiction. https://gatewayfoundation.org/addiction/drug-addiction-effects

Today, more than 7 million people [in the USA] suffer from an illicit drug disorder, and one in four deaths results from illicit drug use. In fact, more deaths, illnesses and disabilities are associated with drug abuse than any other preventable health condition.

c) Two wrongs don't make a right. If you believe that alcohol, cigarettes and prescription meds are genuinely so harmful, then how can you possibly in good faith not do everything you can to eliminate them from the public square? If you don't believe they are harmful then what relevance do they have to the issue of narcotic usage and legality? Surely you can't possibly be asserting a non sequitur into your argument in a ham-fisted attempt at some sort of moral equivalence?

In the end, argue and advocate for what you will. But know that your argument leaves other to suffer a fate like this:

 

[Carl Spackler]

Or like this.

This is the consequence of the position you advocate.

 

[eldorado]

Or like this.

This is the consequence of the position you advocate.

That is no more the consequence of his position than the one that says everyone who drinks alcohol will become an alcoholic and have liver failure.

 

[Carl Spackler]

That is no more the consequence of his position than the one that says everyone who drinks alcohol will become an alcoholic and have liver failure.

Well it is different. Firstly, no one has made the argument that every person who drinks will become an alcoholic and die of liver failure. Not only is the argument spurious but it's patently false.

Secondly, not all chemicals have an equal dopamine affect on the body. Alcohol is very mild in it's impact and (genetic predisposition aside) takes significant, sustained usage to cause addiction. Cocaine has a huge hit, crack more so (to the point of first use addiction), heroin up again, meth and the synthetics even more still. Saying there is no difference in the positions is akin to saying that little Timmy playing AusKick is no different as a footballer than Tommy Mitchell. They both kick a footy, after all.

The difference in the addictive natures of the substances is what motivates societal acceptance of the risk of consumption. Alcohol is safely consumable as a recreational product and one that in normal usage poses no threat (genetic predisposition aside) and is a threat that common individuals with responsible usage can easily avoid. Narcotics are a completely different matter. The addiction threat they pose cannot be managed common people with responsible usage and the consequences of this ready danger are significant, hence the substances are judged bad ideas for free use.

Importantly, the likelihood of addiction to alcohol or narcotics is almost entirely predictable by consumption patterns before a person's 20's. Drink before your 20 and your much more likely to have drinking problems later in life. Take drugs at the young age and your chances of addiction later rise dramatically. So the greater societal acceptance of drugs, and narcotics in particular due to their addictiveness and health impacts, the more likely young people are to try them at a young age. The position of drug liberalisation exposes the least mature to the greatest risk at the worst time (not to mention the physical development problems that drug use causes on a still developing brain). How is that not irresponsible?

 

[eldorado]

I don't think anyone is advocating drug use on the adolescent brain any more than they are advocating alcohol consumption during adolescence.

And I stand by my statement. Your claim that abuse, addiction and physical health problems are the natural consequence of use is as invalid as my follow up claim. The traits of the individual are the main determinant, not the characteristics of the consciousness-altering substance.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't think anyone is advocating drug use on the adolescent brain any more than they are advocating alcohol consumption during adolescence.

And I stand by my statement. Your claim that abuse, addiction and physical health problems are the natural consequence of use is as invalid as my follow up claim. The traits of the individual are the main determinant, not the characteristics of the consciousness-altering substance.

Without consciousness-altering characteristics the traits would be immaterial. I suspect we agree there are multiple factors that affect the likelihood of addiction, like biology (genetic predisposition and mental illnesses), environment (family, friends, social circles), and development (particularly early age consumption). The issue is that not all substances are equally likely to trigger addiction, but addiction to any alcohol or drug has bad consequences. So when a substance moves from one in which addiction can largely be reasonably avoided to one in which addiction cannot be reasonably avoided then it passes into the territory of rightly being banned.

And as to advocating teen drug use, obviously no one is arguing that. Nor am I claiming anyone is. We do have a current social problem which has been highlighted many times in defense of drug liberalisation, teen alcohol use. The socially acceptable aspect of alcohol consumption (which I fully support, by they way) has a very real impact on the ability of teens to consume it, frequently binging. It's a genuine social and individual health concern. No one advocates that teens consume alcohol, in fact the opposite is obviously correct, but consume it all the same they do as it is easily and widely available.

Now, how, with that great example in front of us where the dangers of the least addictive drug in common usage are already troublesome for adolescents, is it a socially justified position to argue for equally liberal and acceptable consumption of even more addictive and consequential substances? It cannot be.

And forget the adolescents for a moment, liberal access to illicit substances will have exactly the same addictive pressures amongst adults that tobacco and alcohol currently cause so much trouble with. It boggles my mind that as a society we argue for less alcohol and tobacco (in particular) consumption but then many simultaneously advocate for greater narcotic consumption. The positions are entirely inconsistent from a risk acceptance and management point of view.

 

[arupist]

I don't think anyone is advocating drug use on the adolescent brain any more than they are advocating alcohol consumption during adolescence.

And I stand by my statement. Your claim that abuse, addiction and physical health problems are the natural consequence of use is as invalid as my follow up claim. The traits of the individual are the main determinant, not the characteristics of the consciousness-altering substance.

You don't think that addiction is more likely with heroine than alcohol? I don't think this difference comes down to the individual. Granted, some individuals may be better able to cope than others, but it is much harder as you go up the scale.

I do not wish to get into a convoluted discussion about alcohol vs cocaine, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Gralin]

You have to be careful once you start it can be a slippery slope before you know it you'll be doing it in the streets.




We are talking about clogging aren't we?

You like clogging?


May be a bad word or two in the video

 

[Arkadia]

Drugs are a menace to society....causing grief to families and a great burden to society.

Young adults, teenagers....drugs do not discriminate no matter what part of society you belong.

My late brother worked in the Hospital system, he saw first hand the destruction drugs caused. Perfectly young people from average homes and the devastation it had brought upon themselves and their families.....

He would often tell me "you have no idea what is going on out there meaning society.
Many people overdosing....Saturday nights was the worse, they could not keep up with amount of cases and they would have to send patients to other hospitals due to the numbers....

They would often take an x-ray of patients stomach who had overdosed and find tiny bits of pieces of Glass and CD's mixed in with ICE and other substances.
This had an immediate affect on the patient taking the drug as the glass and smashed CD's would cut the lining of the stomach and the intestine causing the drug to enter the blood system and having an immediate affect.....

Also suicide and attempted suicide was very high amongst long term users of substance abuse.

No matter who you are or what background you come from nobody is immune from this, whether as a teenager going out with friends and experimenting or seeing others dabbling in it or at University .

Education is the best prevention for our kids and society.

 

[MrPremiership]

Those people who don't do drugs = anti-drug use
Those people who do drugs or dabble = pro-drug use

 

[Gralin]

Those people who don't do drugs = anti-drug use
Those people who do drugs or dabble = pro-drug use

I always find it interesting how it has to be an all or nothing

If you point out that alcohol and tobacco are legal as a reason why say marijuana should be, then people that happily drink and or smoke say nah you should outlaw alcohol and tobacco, or insist that weed and heroin are the same, or that if you smoke a joint you will be lighting up an ice pipe next.


The reality is people like doing things that are bad for them, there are whole legal industries based around this and while not all illegal substances are the same or should be treated the same as the legal vices, some really aren't that different.

Canada has just legalized marijuana, that gives them way more control over it, and more importantly they get tax dollars from it instead of just spending tax dollars on it

You make something legal you take that doing something naughty element away, you can now have conversations about it that aren't don't do that it's bad, to here this is why you shouldn't do it.

Even better, your medical researchers can now actually much more easily study it's uses and effects because they are not trying to study something that is illegal, they can do trials that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do.

I think it's only a matter of time before you can buy weed over the counter here, I don't see anything else being like that though. MDMA, Coke, Speed, Ice, Heroin, are either a bridge too far or something you just really don't want to normalize or that you can control at all.

 

[MrPremiership]

I just can't remember a time when something good has come out of cocaine use. Of course, something bad doesn't happen every time cocaine is used, but occasionally there are negative events that stem from the use.

I don't understand the culture of trying to normalise drug use, or pretend its acceptable for rich sports people to dabble in it.

 

[eldorado]

I don't understand the culture of trying to normalise drug use, or pretend its acceptable for rich sports people to dabble in it.

It's not my job to 'accept' what other people put in to their own bodies for their own amusement. I only care what they do to other people.

The above point is the one that gets forgotten too often. Yes, meth leads to anti-social behaviour...but so does alcohol, hugely. Still more than meth, despite the meth problem getting so bad.

There is what you choose to do with your own body, and then what you do to others. I have no interest in the former, I don't need to either 'accept' or 'condemn' it. It is a matter for you, and the law enforcement agency with the legitimate authority to enforce current laws.

Then there is what you do to others. So if you're on meth, and assault someone, throw the book. But the same applies to alcohol. The legal status of the substance doesn't alter my judgement in any way. I don't 'accept' that.

I don't smoke dope, but I've never seen too many violent or anti-social smokers (except when they refuse to come out to the pub cos they want to sit on the couch eating cornchips)

On this basis, should dope be banned, or regulated like other drugs adults choose to indulge in, nicotine and alcohol?

The two aspects, possibly self-harmful habits, and anti-social behaviour, are so rarely discussed as seperate that they seem to be conflagrated in people's minds. To put my point in another way...I don't expect the government to make laws banning people from masturbating, but I certainly expect a law to stop them doing it in front of my kids. One is your own body, one is someone else's. One is your own business, and your right; you live or die by your choices; one is NOT your right, and I want the authorities to stop you affecting the wellbeing of others against their will.

The same perspective is why I absolutely accept voluntary euthenasia as being fundamentally different from murder. Yet many governemnts refuse people this most basic of rights, to be in charge of your own body

People think it's spurious to link recreational drugs with alcohol, but viewed from the above perspective, their associated issues are virtually the same.

 

[MrPremiership]

It's not my job to 'accept' what other people put in to their own bodies for their own amusement. I only care what they do to other people.

The above point is the one that gets forgotten too often. Yes, meth leads to anti-social behaviour...but so does alcohol, hugely. Still more than meth, despite the meth problem getting so bad.

There is what you choose to do with your own body, and then what you do to others. I have no interest in the former, I don't need to either 'accept' or 'condemn' it. It is a matter for you, and the law enforcement agency with the legitimate authority to enforce current laws.

There is what you do to others. So if you're on meth, and assault someone, throw the book. But the same applies to alcohol. The legal status of the substance doesn't alter my judgement in any way. I don't 'accept' that.

I don't smoke dope, but I've never seen too many violent or anti-social smokers (except when they refuse to come out to the pub cos they want to sit on the couch eating cornchips)

On this basis, should dope be banned, or regulated like other drugs adults choose toindulge in, nicotine and alcohol

The two aspects, possibly self-harmful habits, and anti-social behaviour, are so rarely discussed as seperate that they seem to be conflagrated in people's minds. To put my point in another way...I don't expect the government to make laws banning people from masturbating, but I certainly expect a law to stop them doing it in front of my kids. One is your own body, one is someone else. One is your own business, you live or die by choices; one is NOT your right, and I want the authorities to stop you affecting the wellbeing of others against their will.

The same perspective is why I absolutely accept voluntary euthenasia as being fundamentally different from murder. yet many governemnts refuse people this most basic of rights, to be in charge of your own body

People think it's spurious to link recreational drugs with alcohol, but viewed from the above perspective, their associated issues are virtually the same.

So, is anything acceptable as long as it doesn't effect other people?

 

[eldorado]

So, is anything acceptable as long as it doesn't effect other people?

It's not my place to 'accept' what people do if it doesn't affect others. I expect others to apply that same standard to me.

 

[MrPremiership]

It's not my place to 'accept' what people do if it doesn't affect others. I expect others to apply that same standard to me.

I don't agree or disagree with that sentiment, just trying to explore it. I think it's a bit simplistic.

For example, if person A does X and that doesn't affect you, but person B does X and it does affect you, then what should be done? Should we outlaw X? Education? Training? Do we target the action or the person? Do we know what will happen with person C, D or E?

If I can drive my car at 160km/h on the Freeway and 3a.m. and there are no other cars around me, is that acceptable behaviour? If I am a capable driver and it doesn't affect anyone, is there any problem with it?

 

[eldorado]

If I can drive my car at 160km/h on the Freeway and 3a.m. and there are no other cars around me, is that acceptable behaviour? If I am a capable driver and it doesn't affect anyone, is there any problem with it?

More info is required to determine a moral problem, but for me, it's simple, NOT simplistic.

If you know the road is closed to all other people, no. If it's a private racetrack, go for it

If it's a public road, and other people could be affected, it's highly irresponsible. Just because you are not aware of other people, there is every chance they could be there. They could be parked on the shoulder as you come around a curve, unseen until the last minute. You don't have the right to endanger others.

It's not simplistic in the least; it's consistent.

 

[MrPremiership]

More info is required to determine a moral problem, but for me, it's simple, NOT simplistic.

If you know the road is closed to all other people, no. If it's a private racetrack, go for it

If it's a public road, and other people could be affected, it's highly irresponsible. Just because you are not aware of other people, there is every chance they could be there. They could be parked on the shoulder as you come around a curve, unseen until the last minute. You don't have the right to endanger others.

It's not simplistic in the least; it's consistent.

Perception of risk to yourself and others. That is what opens the can of worms.
If Person A thinks their drug use doesn't affect others, but what if it does?

Even if an action doesn't affect anyone else, isn't there an obligation to protect people from themselves at times?