Scientists endorse cognitive-enhancing drugs - Page 4

TheHalcyonYear · #91 (**permalink**) 14-December-2008, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toothdust

Hmm, yes, I had forgotten about depression running in families. I do agree, though, that antidepressants work in the short term. The area where I disagree is using them as a fix all. There should be more of an effort to help people with depression from the base of their problems, not just...

This is a common misconception that many have when dealing with depression. There isn't necessarily a causal event that produces the condition. In many cases, the model is more along the line of diabetes where a malfunction or genetic predisposition simply produces the condition rather than trauma over the death of a pet or loss of a job or such. Therefore telling a depressed person to "deal with their problems" is as useless as telling the burn victim that the best treatment for his burns is to talk about the lost puppy of his childhood.

Sam5 · #92 (**permalink**) 14-December-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toothdust

Hmm, yes, I had forgotten about depression running in families. I do agree, though, that antidepressants work in the short term. The area where I disagree is using them as a fix all. There should be more of an effort to help people with depression from the base of their problems,

How do you define "the base of their problems"? Have you gone to medical school? Are you a doctor? What is the "base of all their problems"?

mugaliens · #93 (**permalink**) 14-December-2008, 09:02 AM

Anyone who's ever taken an antidepressant has taken a cognitive-enhancing drug. Scientists have been endorsing those for years.

I'm 100% behind the use of such drugs when they're prescribed by a physician.

This thread, however, is targeted towards drugs which elevate people's performance from mediocre to their natural best - but using an external drug to do so.

I find this happens when I do four things:

1. Get plenty of good, sound sleep.

2. Exercise regularly.

3. Eat healthy, balanced meals.

4. Sharpen my intellect by routine mental exercise, such as participating on their board!

In so doing, my mind is sharper now than it's ever been. Who needs drugs?

Daffy · #94 (**permalink**) 14-December-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Anyone who's ever taken an antidepressant has taken a cognitive-enhancing drug. Scientists have been endorsing those for years.

I'm 100% behind the use of such drugs when they're prescribed by a physician.

This thread, however, is targeted towards drugs which elevate people's performance from mediocre to their natural best - but using an external drug to do so.

I find this happens when I do four things:

1. Get plenty of good, sound sleep.

2. Exercise regularly.

3. Eat healthy, balanced meals.

4. Sharpen my intellect by routine mental exercise, such as participating on their board!

In so doing, my mind is sharper now than it's ever been. Who needs drugs?

Good advice, but---and, obviously you agree----clinical depression is a real, physical problem and sometimes needs to be treated. Other than that condition, I definitely agree with your advice.

toothdust · #95 (**permalink**) 14-December-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Anyone who's ever taken an antidepressant has taken a cognitive-enhancing drug. Scientists have been endorsing those for years.

I'm 100% behind the use of such drugs when they're prescribed by a physician.

Exactly why we need to relax the scheduling laws to allow more research to be done without having to jump through years of DEA hoops. Allowing an open discussion about the science and social aspects of drug use, without political forces and taboos getting in the way, will determine how we should proceed from here.

Quote:

This thread, however, is targeted towards drugs which elevate people's performance from mediocre to their natural best - but using an external drug to do so.

I find this happens when I do four things:

1. Get plenty of good, sound sleep.

2. Exercise regularly.

3. Eat healthy, balanced meals.

4. Sharpen my intellect by routine mental exercise, such as participating on their board!

In so doing, my mind is sharper now than it's ever been. Who needs drugs?

Mugs, I absolutely agree with and practice this advice daily.

This thread has drifted from the original intent of the article in the OP, which was: Healthy people are using and will continue to use mind altering/enhancing drugs, though they don't say it I suspect they would agree that the war on drugs has failed miserably, therefore we should analyze these chemicals in use by healthy people to see if there really are beneficial/enhancing effects that are so widely reported.

I have stated many places in this thread that I think the optimal methods for enhancing your mind is through non-drug ways, but ironically it took certain drug use to realize this, for me anyways. If using such drugs aided in my realization that I really didn't need them after all, but left me with a newfound zeal and passion for life and learning, I can't see how anyone would disagree that they were a life enhancing factor. This is the case for many, many, many people out there. For some people this comes naturally. For others, it may not.

People won't be forced to use any drugs, but denying consenting people the right to do with there mind as they see fit has got to end.

mugaliens · #96 (**permalink**) 14-December-2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toothdust

People won't be forced to use any drugs, but denying consenting people the right to do with there mind as they see fit has got to end.

Unfortunately, there are many things they might do with their minds which render them an eventual burden on society. Therefore, I do believe many mind-altering substances should continue to be restricted or banned.

Caffeine, on the other hand, particularly when served in the form of coffee and it's various chemicals, has been shown to be beneficial in many areas of health.

TheHalcyonYear · #97 (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Unfortunately, there are many things they might do with their minds which render them an eventual burden on society. Therefore, I do believe many mind-altering substances should continue to be restricted or banned.

Caffeine, on the other hand, particularly when served in the form of coffee and it's various chemicals, has been shown to be beneficial in many areas of health.

And this is where I, and others, disagree with you. I agree that someone who harms others when they are under the influence of mind-alterning substances should be held accountable for their actions; but I think someone who harms others when they are under the influence of a bad temper should be held accountable for their actions.

There are many ways that I may injure myself and as a result end up "a burden on society". Over eating, neglect of health, risky lifestyle, can all result in the similar situations. I believe that smoking, alcohol use, caffeine use, and other drug use should be a personal decision. Personally I have high levels of cholesterol which in time will probably result in my having debilitating heart attacks or other sorts of debilitating problems. However, I have refused medication for personal reasons and I am prepared to accept the consequences of my decision. If recreational drug use is prohibited strictly because their use may result in the individual becoming a burden on society, perhaps I should be forced to take the medications that I have been prescribed for the same reason.

Also, how does this square with the fact that alcohol is legal. It will remain legal of course, we tried prohibition in this country and it was a tremendous failure. I would suggest that the current "war on drugs" suggests that this new form of prohibition is doomed to the same junk heap that its predecessor was.

Daffy · #98 (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

Also, how does this square with the fact that alcohol is legal. It will remain legal of course, we tried prohibition in this country and it was a tremendous failure. I would suggest that the current "war on drugs" suggests that this new form of prohibition is doomed to the same junk heap that its predecessor was.

The "War on Drugs" does nothing but raise the price of drugs, which in turn benefits the drug lords and increases collateral crimes like burglary and armed robbery.

Some people are going to use mind altering substances; that's just how it is...make them illegal, and they'll just find something else. Look to the current explosion (pun intended) of meth use. Maybe the world would be a better place if we used the enforcement money to try and build a world where fewer people need to escape it. Just a thought.

And, no, I do not use recreational drugs of any kind.

toothdust · #99 (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Unfortunately, there are many things they might do with their minds which render them an eventual burden on society. Therefore, I do believe many mind-altering substances should continue to be restricted or banned.

Yes, someone also might become a severe alcoholic, addicted to tobacco, junk food, or sugar, and would therefore become a burden on society through degraded mental and physical health. Should we now prohibit these substances? Or should we take a much more rational approach and use regulation, rules, and education to deal with drugs like we do with alcohol, tobacco, and more recently more regulation/education in regards to junk food (like prohibiting soda machines in schools)?

One needs look no further than the Netherlands. They have the most relaxaed drug laws in the world, and surprise! They also have the lowest drug abuse/addiction rates in the world.

I think you are mistaking me when I talk about drug law reform. I understand completely that not all drugs are equal. Some are essentially harmless, others are most destructive on mental/physical health. The Netherlands has such success in dealing with the drug problem because they approach it as a social/public health issue, not a criminal issue. Over there, if you are a heroin addict, you can go to a clinic and get a clean, safe dose; but the catch is they will keep you there for a few days and have you undergo treatment, counseling, or whatever they think is necessary.

I think we could all agree that throwing drug addicts in jail is about as inhumane a thing you can do to a person.

Quote:

Maybe the world would be a better place if we used the enforcement money to try and build a world where fewer people need to escape it. Just a thought.

A fine thought indeed.

Neverfly · #**100** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 03:47 PM

They are not "recreational."

Recreation is the act of rebuilding yourself, thus the word, "recreate."
Recreation is a way of reinforcing the foundations of sanity.

"Mind-altering substance" is a much more accurate term.

Let's be realistic- People with natural brain misfires and chemical imbalances seek CORRECTION for the problem. Creating such things by zonking your poor brain with Heavy Chemicals is not only illogical- it's self destructive and utterly absurd.

Heavy drugs are destructive and damaging. They do not recreate- they break down and damage the brain resulting in errant behavior, mental disorders, physical ailments, societal problems, negligent, criminal and desperado activities, and many other forms of self destructive behavior.

Legalizing substances will decrease crime lord activities, sure. But it will enable substance abusers in much the same way alcohol has- which alcohol is a lightweight drug compared to crack, coke and meth.
Legalizing them only can result in a much greater problem of break down and abuse.
There are no benefits to using heavy illegal drugs, only consequences- regardless to legality.

Neverfly · #**101** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toothdust

Yes, someone also might become a severe alcoholic, addicted to tobacco, junk food, or sugar, and would therefore become a burden on society through degraded mental and physical health. Should we now prohibit these substances? Or should we take a much more rational approach and use regulation, rules, and education to deal with drugs like we do with alcohol, tobacco, and more recently more regulation/education in regards to junk food (like prohibiting soda machines in schools)?

People do not care about "education."

Force people to take educational classes on eating right and they will still eat what they want to eat.

Your analogy is also irrelevant. Sugar is not a destructive drug. Crack cocaine is extremely toxic and destructive. Come to Austin sometime and watch the crackheads do the "Rundberg Shuffle." It's almost funny to watch- if it weren't so pathetically sad and depressing that they chose to utterly destroy their lives and families that way.

Neverfly · #**102** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toothdust

I think you are mistaking me when I talk about drug law reform. I understand completely that not all drugs are equal. Some are essentially harmless, others are most destructive on mental/physical health. The Netherlands has such success in dealing with the drug problem because they approach it as a social/public health issue, not a criminal issue. Over there, if you are a heroin addict, you can go to a clinic and get a clean, safe dose; but the catch is they will keep you there for a few days and have you undergo treatment, counseling, or whatever they think is necessary.

I think we could all agree that throwing drug addicts in jail is about as inhumane a thing you can do to a person.

This is a much more logical argument.
Although I agree with keeping illegal drugs illegal- It is also more logical to treat those who made themselves into victims of drugs than to treat them as criminals and hurt them further.

Even in the USA, most people are ignorant about alcoholism and what is required of an addict to get sober.
They can't just STOP drinking.
The thirst itself... not just the alcohol- the addiction, the DESIRE for something that is legal and readily available is the most destructive factor. It creates the need for destructive behavior.

Throwing someone in jail is just not a motivating factor to sober them up. They are addicted. Addiction requires treatment. They can't just up and quit.

Daffy · #**103** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

They are not "recreational."

Recreation is the act of rebuilding yourself, thus the word, "recreate."
Recreation is a way of reinforcing the foundations of sanity.

"Mind-altering substance" is a much more accurate term.

Let's be realistic- People with natural brain misfires and chemical imbalances seek CORRECTION for the problem. Creating such things by zonking your poor brain with Heavy Chemicals is not only illogical- it's self destructive and utterly absurd.

Heavy drugs are destructive and damaging. They do not recreate- they break down and damage the brain resulting in errant behavior, mental disorders, physical ailments, societal problems, negligent, criminal and desperado activities, and many other forms of self destructive behavior.

Legalizing substances will decrease crime lord activities, sure. But it will enable substance abusers in much the same way alcohol has- which alcohol is a lightweight drug compared to crack, coke and meth.
Legalizing them only can result in a much greater problem of break down and abuse.
There are no benefits to using heavy illegal drugs, only consequences- regardless to legality.

I agree, mostly, about the drugs themselves...but keeping them illegal serves no purpose.

I mean, do you know anyone who would start using heroin simply because it was no longer criminal? I don't; and I know a LOT of drug users. Keeping them illegal works just as well as it did with alcohol...in other words not at all. And, in fact, increases violent crime.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. We've been doing it this way for at least 100 years; let's think outside the box for once. Or let's be consistent and make alcohol and cigarettes illegal as well.

Trantor · #**104** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daffy

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. We've been doing it this way for at least 100 years; let's think outside the box for once. Or let's be consistent and make alcohol and cigarettes illegal as well.

I agree. I have no problem at all with making alcohol illegal again. It's stronger than marijuana and generally causes more aggressive and stupid behavior. Cigarettes, while not having the mind altering/addictive properties of alcohol; are very addictive and are the main cause of a very high cancer rate, which is a serious healthcare and economic problem.

Unfortunately, the government has decided that alcohol is our drug of choice, and there is too much money being made by legally selling alcohol. Alcohol will remain legal.

toothdust · #**105** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trantor

I agree. I have no problem at all with making alcohol illegal again. It's stronger than marijuana and generally causes more aggressive and stupid behavior. Cigarettes, while not having the mind altering/addictive properties of alcohol; are very addictive and are the main cause of a very high cancer rate, which is a serious healthcare and economic problem.

Unfortunately, the government has decided that alcohol is our drug of choice, and there is too much money being made by legally selling alcohol. Alcohol will remain legal.

Where have you been? We tried prohibition. It doesn't work. That is the whole point.

I liked Daffy's comment earlier. We need to help people realize that life is worth living, not destroying yourself at the bottom of a bottle of whiskey, or with a needle in your arm twice a day.

Then again, if people could use these things responsibly, then I would have no problem with anyone doing whatever they want. Problem is we are a long ways off from people using drugs responsibly.

Neverfly · #**106** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trantor

I agree. I have no problem at all with making alcohol illegal again. It's stronger than marijuana and generally causes more aggressive and stupid behavior. Cigarettes, while not having the mind altering/addictive properties of alcohol; are very addictive and are the main cause of a very high cancer rate, which is a serious healthcare and economic problem.

Unfortunately, the government has decided that alcohol is our drug of choice, and there is too much money being made by legally selling alcohol. Alcohol will remain legal.

This really is a key factor in the discussion.

Look at the RAMPAGE caused by the prohibition. We were just Too Used to it.
What was OK yesterday, is suddenly NOT ok today.

Kinda like the federal speed limit of 55mph here in the states back in the day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daffy

I agree, mostly, about the drugs themselves...but keeping them illegal serves no purpose.

I mean, do you know anyone who would start using heroin simply because it was no longer criminal? I don't; and I know a LOT of drug users. Keeping them illegal works just as well as it did with alcohol...in other words not at all. And, in fact, increases violent crime.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. We've been doing it this way for at least 100 years; let's think outside the box for once. Or let's be consistent and make alcohol and cigarettes illegal as well.

It doesn't increase violent crime. The addiction- the nature of the drugs do that.

Changing what's NOT OK today to "OK" tomorrow will have a profound effect.

Would people start using?
What the HECK makes them start now?!

I have no idea. Yours or my own personal experience on what motivates someone to use drugs falls under anecdote.
If I start listing anecdotes in this discussion, I'll get told off. But the ones I have could curl your hair and make it very clear why I am an AVID Drug Hater and why I think anyone that would WANT to use them "Recreationally" requires immediate counseling... or a hammer to their head.

I believe drugs should be illegal- simply because they have been long enough for us to be used to it. Since we are used to it, we can continue to appreciate the understanding that "Drugs are (Expletive) BAD for you!"
Drug Law Reform, as mentioned above, is also a viable candidate, but I disagree that "education and drug awareness" is anywhere NEAR as effective as people like to claim they are.
They United States has enormous contributions to health education for nutrition and we're sill quite fat.

Had drugs been legal all this time, I would oppose suddenly making them illegal.

I would say, let people choose to mess up their lives if they want to.

However, since they are illegal, we are accustomed to that stigma, we know how powerful the addictions are and the ferocity and destructiveness of the addictive nature- It's best to leave them illegal. It's bad enough- why throw a monkey wrench into the works and enable the addiction even more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by toothdust

Where have you been? We tried prohibition. It doesn't work. That is the whole point.

It didn't work only because of the reasons I just stated above.

mugaliens · #**107** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

And this is where I, and others, disagree with you.

With my comment, "Unfortunately, there are many things they might do with their minds which render them an eventual burden on society..."

Quote:

I agree that someone who harms others when they are under the influence of mind-alterning substances should be held accountable for their actions

We're in agreement, here.

Quote:

...but I think someone who harms others when they are under the influence of a bad temper should be held accountable for their actions.

We're in agreement here, too.

Quote:

There are many ways that I may injure myself and as a result end up "a burden on society". Over eating, neglect of health, risky lifestyle, can all result in the similar situations. I believe that smoking, alcohol use, caffeine use, and other drug use should be a personal decision.

It's not "should be." It's "it is." There are no food police who'll arrest you for stuffing your face. There are, however, employers who will fire you for being either overweight or out of shape if either is a requirement for your job.

Quote:

Personally I have high levels of cholesterol which in time will probably result in my having debilitating heart attacks or other sorts of debilitating problems.

Not necessarily. Depends on your ratios, the type of food you consume, and how much you exercise.

Quote:

If recreational drug use is prohibited strictly because their use may result in the individual becoming a burden on society, perhaps I should be forced to take the medications that I have been prescribed for the same reason.

That's an interesting concept. Or perhaps you should merely be given the choice, "take the medication, or forfeit societal support when the inevitable result of not taking the medication occurs." If you don't believe that result will happen, then don't take the medicine. If you're correct, then no problem. If you're wrong, then at least you would be burdening society by your unwillingness to make prudent choices.

Quote:

Also, how does this square with the fact that alcohol is legal.

In moderation it's not harmful, and can even be beneficial.

Quote:

It will remain legal of course, we tried prohibition in this country and it was a tremendous failure. I would suggest that the current "war on drugs" suggests that this new form of prohibition is doomed to the same junk heap that its predecessor was.

Whoever was talking about a "war on drugs?" I certainly wasn't, so please dont bring that into the mix.

If you'll recall, I supported the use of "cognitive-enhancing drugs," provided, of course, that there was no societal burden. Above, I waived the latter restriction, provided one who chose to do so anyway forfeited societal help.

Fazor · #**108** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I believe drugs should be illegal- simply because they have been long enough for us to be used to it. Since we are used to it, we can continue to appreciate the understanding that "Drugs are (Expletive) BAD for you!"

That's about how I'd sum up my feelings about it. I spoke with Toothdust a bit via PM before this thread really took off, but as a lover of alcohol I understand that it's pretty hypocratic for me to say people shouldn't use certian drugs.

The "hard stuff" like coke, heroine, etc. have very, very adverse impact on health. But certian other substances I don't feel are that much different than alcohol. But, I often say if Alcohol and Tobacco weren't already legal (as in, we just discovered them today) then they'd be made illegal.

So while I can appreciate the argument for certian substances; and while I do believe there's some very good arguments for (Inc Tax revenue from legal sales, better quality and quantity controls, etc); I can't get over the "It's already illegal, why change it"?

mugaliens · #**109** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daffy

I agree, mostly, about the drugs themselves...but keeping them illegal serves no purpose.

No purpose at all... Not even minimizing their widespread use among our youth, who have not yet reached a maturity level...

Saying "they're available anyway" is a logically fallacious arguement. The question is how much more available they would become if they were rendered legal.

Quote:

I mean, do you know anyone who would start using heroin simply because it was no longer criminal?

Personally, no. Regardless, opium dens remain in existence around the world, and people get hooked in them all the time.

Quote:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. We've been doing it this way for at least 100 years; let's think outside the box for once.

Another definition of insanity is doing things significantly different without testing to see what the results might be.

Ug: "Hmm... What's this red button do?"

Thug: "I dunno. Push it."

Trantor · #**110** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toothdust

Where have you been? We tried prohibition. It doesn't work. That is the whole point.

I liked Daffy's comment earlier. We need to help people realize that life is worth living, not destroying yourself at the bottom of a bottle of whiskey, or with a needle in your arm twice a day.

Then again, if people could use these things responsibly, then I would have no problem with anyone doing whatever they want. Problem is we are a long ways off from people using drugs responsibly.

Believe me, I do understand that it wouldn't work. I was simply making a statement from my perspective; and that's because I drink very moderately and I don't smoke or use illegal drugs.

I do think that marijuana is unfairly targeted by existing drug laws. I don't use it, but I have used it moderately during my college days, so I know it doesn't deserve to be scheduled alongside drugs such as cocaine or meth. I also don't think that it's the so-called "gateway drug". The theory is that drug users start using a mild drug such as marijuana and then move up to cocaine, heroin, or meth. I've known many smart and educated people who drink moderately and who would also smoke marijuana moderately, without the need to move up to stronger drugs.

This is my opinion only. I work for a drug free workplace company, where random and accident related tests are done frequently. It is my job to terminate any employee who tests positive in a drug test. It is something that I do all too often. I get to inform the tested employee about the results and then hear his/her story; before I terminate them.

HenrikOlsen · #**111** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toothdust

Such a typical propaganda story.
<snip>

Annual causes of death in U.S.. Tobacco: 435,000. Alcohol: 85,000. How many people directly killed by cannabis? Zero (0).

Nice try, Sam.

A teenager run over by a drunk driver is included in the alcohol numbers while a teenager run over by a guy stoned on cannabis is not counted in your zero number.

You're trying for very disingenuous manipulation, especially since your numbers aren't adjusting for how many use the various substances either.

Basically, the typical propaganda story is being told by you.

Nice try Toothdust

Daffy · #**112** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This really is a key factor in the discussion.

Look at the RAMPAGE caused by the prohibition. We were just Too Used to it.
What was OK yesterday, is suddenly NOT ok today.

Kinda like the federal speed limit of 55mph here in the states back in the day.
It doesn't increase violent crime. The addiction- the nature of the drugs do that.

Changing what's NOT OK today to "OK" tomorrow will have a profound effect.

Would people start using?
What the HECK makes them start now?!

I have no idea. Yours or my own personal experience on what motivates someone to use drugs falls under anecdote.
If I start listing anecdotes in this discussion, I'll get told off. But the ones I have could curl your hair and make it very clear why I am an AVID Drug Hater and why I think anyone that would WANT to use them "Recreationally" requires immediate counseling... or a hammer to their head.

I believe drugs should be illegal- simply because they have been long enough for us to be used to it. Since we are used to it, we can continue to appreciate the understanding that "Drugs are (Expletive) BAD for you!"
Drug Law Reform, as mentioned above, is also a viable candidate, but I disagree that "education and drug awareness" is anywhere NEAR as effective as people like to claim they are.
They United States has enormous contributions to health education for nutrition and we're sill quite fat.

Had drugs been legal all this time, I would oppose suddenly making them illegal.

I would say, let people choose to mess up their lives if they want to.

However, since they are illegal, we are accustomed to that stigma, we know how powerful the addictions are and the ferocity and destructiveness of the addictive nature- It's best to leave them illegal. It's bad enough- why throw a monkey wrench into the works and enable the addiction even more?

It didn't work only because of the reasons I just stated above.

Neverfly, let's not start comparing scabs: One of my dearest friends died of a drug overdose when I was 13, OK? I don't like drugs, either. But your method has been tried to death (literally) and it does not work. By driving the cost of drugs up, you cause junkies to resort to violent crime for the price of a fix (the drug doesn't do that...the addiction and cost do). You think the drug does it? Please...junkies would be delighted to sit around the house all day zonked out of their heads. I don't like that, either...but it's a LOT better than having them knock over a liquor store for the price of a fix.

There was a pacific island (I forget which one) where they actually managed to eliminate drugs. And what happened? People were burning cow dung to sniff the burning methane.

As I say, we tried your way. It didn't work. Let's try something else.

Daffy · #**113** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mugaliens

No purpose at all... Not even minimizing their widespread use among our youth, who have not yet reached a maturity level...

Saying "they're available anyway" is a logically fallacious arguement. The question is how much more available they would become if they were rendered legal.

Personally, no. Regardless, opium dens remain in existence around the world, and people get hooked in them all the time.

Another definition of insanity is doing things significantly different without testing to see what the results might be.

Ug: "Hmm... What's this red button do?"

Thug: "I dunno. Push it."

When I was a minor, alcohol was legal and drugs were HIGHLY illegal (a marijuana cigarette could get you 10 years). Guess which was a LOT easier to get hold of? If you guessed marijuana, you are absolutely correct. Same for LSD, pills, and just about anything you care to name. Getting booze was difficult. So much for protecting the young.

Neverfly · #**114** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daffy

Neverfly, let's not start comparing scabs: One of my dearest friends died of a drug overdose when I was 13, OK? I don't like drugs, either. But your method has been tried to death (literally) and it does not work. By driving the cost of drugs up, you cause junkies to resort to violent crime for the price of a fix (the drug doesn't do that...the addiction and cost do). You think the drug does it? Please...junkies would be delighted to sit around the house all day zonked out of their heads. I don't like that, either...but it's a LOT better than having them knock over a liquor store for the price of a fix.

There was a pacific island (I forget which one) where they actually managed to eliminate drugs. And what happened? People were burning cow dung to sniff the burning methane.

As I say, we tried your way. It didn't work. Let's try something else.

Are you referring to Prohibition or the long standing illegality of drugs?

Daffy · #**115** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Are you referring to Prohibition or the long standing illegality of drugs?

Both. Is there a difference?

Neverfly · #**116** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daffy

Both. Is there a difference?

There is quite a bit of difference.
Are you unaware of what they are?

TheHalcyonYear · #**117** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 08:51 PM

I really like the way that the intellectuals here are going to tell everyone how to live their lives to best effect. Yeah, people die from cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs, from obesity, from high cholesterol, and lots of other stuff. People are reckless and crash bicycles, hang gliders, cars, and lots of other stuff. They hurt themselves and sometimes are a drain on society and sometimes they just die leaving heartbroken and grieving family and friends behind.

I have no problem with increasing insurance premiums for those who indulge in risky behavior, but I could fly home for the winter holiday in a week or so and be badly injured in a plane crash. It's not very likely, but if it happens I will be a drain on society. If I'm obese I may be a drain on society too; are we going to make it illegal to be above a certain weight?

As the man said, if a society outlaws all drugs some people will pick up smoking cow dung. Let other people live as they wish. If your brother, sister, or friend wants to a joint in the evening after a day of work, who are you to tell them that he should not have to alter his mind. You live your life and let them live theirs.

I think it's a very bad idea, however, to begin to tell people how

Daffy · #**118** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

There is quite a bit of difference.
Are you unaware of what they are?

Both are ineffectual attempts to legislate morality and actually cause more crimes than they prevent. In light of that, I am not really interested in any hypothetical differences...they would be irrelevant.

Neverfly · #**119** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

I really like the way that the intellectuals here are going to tell everyone how to live their lives to best effect. Yeah, people die from cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs, from obesity, from high cholesterol, and lots of other stuff. People are reckless and crash bicycles, hang gliders, cars, and lots of other stuff. They hurt themselves and sometimes are a drain on society and sometimes they just die leaving heartbroken and grieving family and friends behind.

I have no problem with increasing insurance premiums for those who indulge in risky behavior, but I could fly home for the winter holiday in a week or so and be badly injured in a plane crash. It's not very likely, but if it happens I will be a drain on society. If I'm obese I may be a drain on society too; are we going to make it illegal to be above a certain weight?

As the man said, if a society outlaws all drugs some people will pick up smoking cow dung. Let other people live as they wish. If your brother, sister, or friend wants to a joint in the evening after a day of work, who are you to tell them that he should not have to alter his mind. You live your life and let them live theirs.

I think it's a very bad idea, however, to begin to tell people how

Hmm....

I could do without the comment about "intellectuals" telling people how to live...

But this is still a really good point.
What right do we have to call them illegal?
Why not booze and cigs too?

Well...

The Illegal drugs are very HEAVY compared to booze and cigs...

Daffy · #**120** (**permalink**) 15-December-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

\

The Illegal drugs are very HEAVY compared to booze and cigs...

You actually think marijuana is "very HEAVY" compared to booze and cigarettes? Seriously, I don't even know how to address that one. I mean the nicotine addiction alone...well, I am just incredulous. If nicotine were sold as a white powder, it would definitely be illegal.

I don't mean this in a harsh way, and with all respect, is it possible your emotions on this issue may be affecting your opinions?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Discussion: Gravity Probe B's First Month In ...	Fraser	Universe Today Story Comments	2	26-May-2004 06:26 AM