This attitude bothers me as well. If you want to complain that people aren't doing enough, go after the fuckwads arguing about whether American Idol is rigged, not people that are trying to make positive change.
There is WAY more to the drug war than a diversion from the war. In a lot of ways, the wars you are talking about are facilitated by the war on drugs.
Just telling it how i read it in the books, i didn't mean specificaly the war going on now. The book i'm reading was writen in the early 90's.
My personal feeling is that the goverment has no real interest in helping people get off drugs when people in the CIA make money from it.
I agree with you that they need to help people by putting them through drug programs and not in prision. But don't get the people who really care mixed up with goverment agenda, it's not the same.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Just telling it how i read it in the books, i didn't mean specificaly the war going on now. The book i'm reading was writen in the early 90's.
My personal feeling is that the goverment has no real interest in helping people get off drugs when people in the CIA make money from it.
I agree with you that they need to help people by putting them through drug programs and not in prision. But don't get the people who really care mixed up with goverment agenda, it's not the same.
After I walked away I realized that I may have taken your post the wrong way. I thought you meant that government was using the debate over the war on drugs in itself as a smokescreen...if I'm reading this correctly now, I think you're saying that they are intentionally doing the WRONG thing, in order to keep the public disinformed and keep their black-ops funding alive...which I'd agree with.
At the time that I read your post, I was thinking about all the people that deride others for actually caring about the issue, when there are (admitedly) bigger ones to worry about (one poster in particular that went from drug-warrior to taking this stance). Just because there are bigger problems doesn't mean this one isn't worthy was what I was trying to say...but apparently I didn't need to tell you that
There are millions of "examples" behind bars right now...are they 'saving' any kids from drug use right now?
Don't you think more kids would be saved if addicts had accessible treatment instead of being introduced to real criminals behind bars? If someone is an addict, does his time, gets out and takes up the habit again (if he ever dropped it in jail)...are you saving more teens than you would if that same person was treated and given the tools to kick his addiction? You are also 'saving' the addict instead of putting another nail in his coffin...Not that you care about anyone with an addiction....but wouldn't this person breaking their addiction as a positive example be something worth trying, as opposed to the status quo, which is NOT working?
that argument is as pointless as saying that the other criminals in jail aren't helping set an example for youth. Jail has a purpose, it is to deter people from engaging in antisocial, illegal or otherwise dangerous activities.
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
There are millions of "examples" behind bars right now...are they 'saving' any kids from drug use right now?
Don't you think more kids would be saved if addicts had accessible treatment instead of being introduced to real criminals behind bars? If someone is an addict, does his time, gets out and takes up the habit again (if he ever dropped it in jail)...are you saving more teens than you would if that same person was treated and given the tools to kick his addiction? You are also 'saving' the addict instead of putting another nail in his coffin...Not that you care about anyone with an addiction....but wouldn't this person breaking their addiction as a positive example be something worth trying, as opposed to the status quo, which is NOT working?
remind me again why I should have to "save the addict"...he got himself into that predicament in the first place by taking his first hit.
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Just telling it how i read it in the books, i didn't mean specificaly the war going on now. The book i'm reading was writen in the early 90's.
My personal feeling is that the goverment has no real interest in helping people get off drugs when people in the CIA make money from it.
I agree with you that they need to help people by putting them through drug programs and not in prision. But don't get the people who really care mixed up with goverment agenda, it's not the same.
There would be no need for drug programs to detox and alleviate addiction if people would simply listen to the anti drug information out there. But instead, people have the attitude "no one is going to tell ME what to do" and then engage in drugs and get hooked. It really is pretty simple, but then again, I suppose were dealing with less than par mental faculties anyways. Taking drugs, smoking and drinking to intoxication are obscenely poor choices that one makes in life. It isn't like the information isn't out there. If such things didn't effect the rest of society as a whole, then I couldn't care less if you indulged and wasted your life away. But because it does have resilient consequences for all, it is my concern what you do.
As for the war on drugs not winning....remember not too long ago....oh lets see now, just in the past five years was it?.....that smokers got all high and mighty that the ban on smoking would NEVER happen because it infringed on their constitutional rights to fuck up their lungs. But hey, guess what.....YOU CANT SMOKE IN PUBLIC ANYMORE!
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
oh...and guess whats on the horizon. You're going to lose your health insurance benefits if you smoke or do drugs. Chew on that one awhile. HA...the war on drugs is stronger than ever...and you're being forced to retreat.
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
that argument is as pointless as saying that the other criminals in jail aren't helping set an example for youth. Jail has a purpose, it is to deter people from engaging in antisocial, illegal or otherwise dangerous activities.
Who is it deterring? What don't you get, ANYONE that wants to do drugs can...
The message legalization sends is another issue, but using prohibition as a deterrent does NOT WORK.
It's not really "lost", it's just that fighting drugs and drug abuse is not what the "war on drugs" is. The war on drugs is just another form of social control. That's it. And it works extremely well, unfortunately.
Who is it deterring? What don't you get, ANYONE that wants to do drugs can...
The message legalization sends is another issue, but using prohibition as a deterrent does NOT WORK.
Who is it deterring? What don't you get, ANYONE that wants to do drugs can...
The message legalization sends is another issue, but using prohibition as a deterrent does NOT WORK.
its as stupid as saying we should have compassion and pay for government fat farm assistance to people who have massive heart attacks and are grotesquely obsese from eating fast food all the time. Would you pay for that out of your hard earned tax dollars? I think not.
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
its as stupid as saying we should have compassion and pay for government fat farm assistance to people who have massive heart attacks and are grotesquely obsese from eating fast food all the time. Would you pay for that out of your hard earned tax dollars? I think not.
That comparison only makes sense if we were locking people up for their eating habits. Maybe that's the solution to that problem too?
yep
it isn't a medical condition that requires compassion...they did it to themselves....it could have been avoided.
But it wasn't avoided, right? Why are people so insistent on taking such a hard line approach? People make mistakes, how do we deal with that? You are avoiding the benefits of treatment in all of your posts. Do you not agree that people are more likely to live a productive life, and a more positive influence on society if we treat them instead of locking them up? And that your hard-earned tax dollars would better spent on hospitals than jails?
But it wasn't avoided, right? Why are people so insistent on taking such a hard line approach? People make mistakes, how do we deal with that? You are avoiding the benefits of treatment in all of your posts. Do you not agree that people are more likely to live a productive life, and a more positive influence on society if we treat them instead of locking them up? And that your hard-earned tax dollars would better spent on hospitals than jails?
True, in theory. However, what is to say these people aren't going to get out of treatment and return right back to the drugs? The same is said for alcoholics. The argument is.."don't incarcerate for drunk driving...give them treatment"...but how many times do we see them get out of rehab just to return to alcohol. It doesn't work that easily.
Alcohol is a perfect example of people not being able to regulate their use. I bet if you surveyed just this board alone....a good 80%(if not more) of them will have gotten drunk at least once this holiday weekend. And then survey them to see how many drove afterwards with the mentality "oh I can handle my liquor". Its an arrogance issue. The not me syndrome.
No one starts drugs or alcohol expecting to get hooked. It just happens. It's the nature of the substance.
Now I'm not saying that every person will get addicted. But the statistics show that many do. That is the problem. There aren't enough responsible casual users out there to justify legalizing it.
Even if pot was legalized ( I will conceed that although it is a gateway category substance/as is tobacco and alcohol....it is equally as harmless as alcohol when used in moderation ) it would open the door for other battles about the plethora of other drugs available. The argument would be "well if pot is legal why isn't X or why isn't Y"." So then the issue never ends. Before you know it, you have kids ordering joy pills at the local ice cream shop.
It simply cannot lead to anything good accross the board.
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
That comparison only makes sense if we were locking people up for their eating habits. Maybe that's the solution to that problem too?
poor eating habits don't put other people at risk, but would you complain if the government told McD's that they couldn't sell toxic food anymore? They have already regulated trans fats. Why aren't you fighting for your right to indulge in that?
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
umm, yeah...someone smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home doesn't put anyone else at risk either. although i'm sure you'll come up with some REALLY half-ass reason that it does. i'm breahtlessly awaiting to hear it.
Do you see the way that tree bends?
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
How much does it cost the system to put someone in prison for a year?
How much does it cost for a year of rehab? (I honestly don't know)
If rehab is less, it makes more business sense to do it that way. People can then become productive members of society.
I don't like the 'they did it to themselves' arguement. Yes, people fuck up. If they want treatment, shouldn't you treat them with compassion. Pick them up instead of throwing them away. If someone YOU knew Juberoo (sp) was caught on a possession crime, would you rather they be given treatment to make themselves better or jail?
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Why should those of us against drug use have to pay taxes for government funded "treatment systems"?
I'm really no expert or anything, but that just not how it works.
Why should those against the war on drugs have to pay taxes for it?
Why should those against the war in Iraq have to pay for it?
Now I'm not saying that every person will get addicted. But the statistics show that many do. That is the problem.
What statistics? The majority of users are not addicted. Are you saying that out of every 10 people you know who drink alcohol at least 5 are addicted?
After I walked away I realized that I may have taken your post the wrong way. I thought you meant that government was using the debate over the war on drugs in itself as a smokescreen...if I'm reading this correctly now, I think you're saying that they are intentionally doing the WRONG thing, in order to keep the public disinformed and keep their black-ops funding alive...which I'd agree with.
At the time that I read your post, I was thinking about all the people that deride others for actually caring about the issue, when there are (admitedly) bigger ones to worry about (one poster in particular that went from drug-warrior to taking this stance). Just because there are bigger problems doesn't mean this one isn't worthy was what I was trying to say...but apparently I didn't need to tell you that
Yep you and i are on the same page.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
True, in theory. However, what is to say these people aren't going to get out of treatment and return right back to the drugs? The same is said for alcoholics. The argument is.."don't incarcerate for drunk driving...give them treatment"...but how many times do we see them get out of rehab just to return to alcohol. It doesn't work that easily.
Alcohol is a perfect example of people not being able to regulate their use. I bet if you surveyed just this board alone....a good 80%(if not more) of them will have gotten drunk at least once this holiday weekend. And then survey them to see how many drove afterwards with the mentality "oh I can handle my liquor". Its an arrogance issue. The not me syndrome. .
Drunk driving and personal use of drugs are totally different animals. And why do you care if people get drunk or stoned without harming anyone?
Now I'm not saying that every person will get addicted. But the statistics show that many do. That is the problem. There aren't enough responsible casual users out there to justify legalizing it. .
Take away everything that is potentially hazardous, is this what you're saying? Because people can't be responsible for their actions? Try looking up the number of casual users...you could also probably add a large percentage because it's stigmatized to the point that people lie about using it.
Even if pot was legalized ( I will conceed that although it is a gateway category substance/as is tobacco and alcohol....it is equally as harmless as alcohol when used in moderation ) it would open the door for other battles about the plethora of other drugs available. The argument would be "well if pot is legal why isn't X or why isn't Y"." So then the issue never ends. Before you know it, you have kids ordering joy pills at the local ice cream shop. .
So what if it opens the door to more discussion? This is a good thing...what we're doing now is not working...discussion can't hurt. Take them as they come and make decisions based on what the public wants...but give them both sides of the story and let them make an informed decision. The government keeps us in the dark about the alternatives, and the possible outcomes.
poor eating habits don't put other people at risk, but would you complain if the government told McD's that they couldn't sell toxic food anymore? They have already regulated trans fats. Why aren't you fighting for your right to indulge in that?.
No I wouldn't agree with the gov't regulating McD's. But, since we're going to get hypothetical.... if they were to regulate McD's and the public was against this move enough to demand trans-fats...and McD's continued to serve them...would it be right to go after McD's for standing up for what their customers want? How about arresting as many of their patrons as possible?
I don't fight for my right to trans-fats because it has absolutely no beneficial qualities....I can't say the same for many recreational drugs.
Drunk driving and personal use of drugs are totally different animals. And why do you care if people get drunk or stoned without harming anyone?
Exactly...but people make mistakes...but like you say...fuck them, their fault.
Take away everything that is potentially hazardous, is this what you're saying? Because people can't be responsible for their actions? Try looking up the number of casual users...you could also probably add a large percentage because it's stigmatized to the point that people lie about using it.
So what if it opens the door to more discussion? This is a good thing...what we're doing now is not working...discussion can't hurt. Take them as they come and make decisions based on what the public wants...but give them both sides of the story and let them make an informed decision. The government keeps us in the dark about the alternatives, and the possible outcomes.
No I wouldn't agree with the gov't regulating McD's. But, since we're going to get hypothetical.... if they were to regulate McD's and the public was against this move enough to demand trans-fats...and McD's continued to serve them...would it be right to go after McD's for standing up for what their customers want? How about arresting as many of their patrons as possible?
I don't fight for my right to trans-fats because it has absolutely no beneficial qualities....I can't say the same for many recreational drugs.
Oh PLEASE do tell us what beneficial qualities recreational drug use has. I'm all ears!
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Oh PLEASE do tell us what beneficial qualities recreational drug use has. I'm all ears!
I beg to differ...you're not all ears if that was all you read in my last post.
Maybe beneficial isn't the right word. But the word "recreational" is self explanatory.
Oh PLEASE do tell us what beneficial qualities recreational drug use has. I'm all ears!
recreational drug use has about as much benefit as drinking a case of beer, eating a double cheeseburger, or sitting around jerking off to porn all day. there is no benefit. but to each their own desires, and if those desires have no negative impact on anyone outside of a person's household, then nobody else should give a good goddamn what a person's doing because it's none of their fucking business. that's...pretty much all there is to it.
as per usual, i'm inexplicably eager to laugh at the inevitably ensuing response...
now if you don't mind, i'm going to sip on this beer, nibble on this dollar menu treasure, and smoke the fuck out of this bowl
Do you see the way that tree bends?
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
recreational drug use has about as much benefit as drinking a case of beer, eating a double cheeseburger, or sitting around jerking off to porn all day. there is no benefit. but to each their own desires, and if those desires have no negative impact on anyone outside of a person's household, then nobody else should give a good goddamn what a person's doing because it's none of their fucking business. that's...pretty much all there is to it.
as per usual, i'm inexplicably eager to laugh at the inevitably ensuing response...
now if you don't mind, i'm going to sip on this beer, nibble on this dollar menu treasure, and smoke the fuck out of this bowl
I agree with everything you said except the first two sentences. There are a lot of benefits to recreational drugs. I'm avoiding the "recreational" benefits because it gives too much ammo to my opponents in these debates...it is all personal opinion to do with spirituality, art, nature, oneness, relaxation/stress relief and all kinds of other 'hippie' ideals that would be pounced upon without any scientific facts or links to back them up.
However, even the harshest rec drugs still have medicinal benefits...perhaps not the ideal drug for treatment, but maybe as an alternative that should be available to people that can't afford or don't have access to pharma care? Check this post:http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4753532&postcount=32
edit: I am not condoning drug use by talking about it's benefits, am I? I know people will think that...I realize rec drugs are usually unhealthy, even dangerous, but they are not entirely pointless or useless IMO.
edit: I am not condoning drug use by talking about it's benefits, am I? I know people will think that...I realize rec drugs are usually unhealthy, even dangerous, but they are not entirely pointless or useless IMO.
cocaine: topical\local anisthetic, vasoconstrictor, relief of sore throat, used to combat altitute sickness\headache, relief of indigestion, gastritis, relief from fatigue & nervousness
mdma (extacy): originaly used as a tool for psychiatry -- used to treat PTSD, rape related trauma, anxiety, treatment of mental disorders in which patients exhibit a lack of trust, can combat the emotional distress of terminal cancer patients, relationship therapy, general psychotherapy use where therapists are incapable of penetrating the resistence of mental barricades placed up by deeply traumatized patients
BAD DRUGS.
DRUGS ARE BAD.
DRUG USERS ARE SCUM.
BAD PEOPLE.
BAD BAD BAD!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
cocaine: topical\local anisthetic, vasoconstrictor, relief of sore throat, used to combat altitute sickness\headache, relief of indigestion, gastritis, relief from fatigue & nervousness
as I said, maybe not the best drug for many of these problems...but I wonder if it's production was regulated, how easily it could be made and cheaply it could be sold in comparison to other drugs.
mdma (extacy): originaly used as a tool for psychiatry -- used to treat PTSD, rape related trauma, anxiety, treatment of mental disorders in which patients exhibit a lack of trust, can combat the emotional distress of terminal cancer patients, relationship therapy, general psychotherapy use where therapists are incapable of penetrating the resistence of mental barricades placed up by deeply traumatized patients
LSD was being researched as a therapeutic tool as well, until it was made illegal, that is. The University of Saskatchewan made huge strides with it's use in the early 60's:
According to one study conducted in 1962, 65 per cent of the alcoholics in the experiment stopped drinking for at least a year-and-a-half (the duration of the study) after taking one dose of LSD. The controlled trial also concluded that less than 25 per cent of alcoholics quit drinking for the same period after receiving group therapy, and less than 12 per cent quit in response to traditional psychotherapy techniques commonly used at that time......http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7951
Comments
Just telling it how i read it in the books, i didn't mean specificaly the war going on now. The book i'm reading was writen in the early 90's.
My personal feeling is that the goverment has no real interest in helping people get off drugs when people in the CIA make money from it.
I agree with you that they need to help people by putting them through drug programs and not in prision. But don't get the people who really care mixed up with goverment agenda, it's not the same.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
At the time that I read your post, I was thinking about all the people that deride others for actually caring about the issue, when there are (admitedly) bigger ones to worry about (one poster in particular that went from drug-warrior to taking this stance). Just because there are bigger problems doesn't mean this one isn't worthy was what I was trying to say...but apparently I didn't need to tell you that
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
As for the war on drugs not winning....remember not too long ago....oh lets see now, just in the past five years was it?.....that smokers got all high and mighty that the ban on smoking would NEVER happen because it infringed on their constitutional rights to fuck up their lungs. But hey, guess what.....YOU CANT SMOKE IN PUBLIC ANYMORE!
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
The message legalization sends is another issue, but using prohibition as a deterrent does NOT WORK.
hmmmm....compassion? empathy? nah, fuck them...right?
it isn't a medical condition that requires compassion...they did it to themselves....it could have been avoided.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
But it wasn't avoided, right? Why are people so insistent on taking such a hard line approach? People make mistakes, how do we deal with that? You are avoiding the benefits of treatment in all of your posts. Do you not agree that people are more likely to live a productive life, and a more positive influence on society if we treat them instead of locking them up? And that your hard-earned tax dollars would better spent on hospitals than jails?
Alcohol is a perfect example of people not being able to regulate their use. I bet if you surveyed just this board alone....a good 80%(if not more) of them will have gotten drunk at least once this holiday weekend. And then survey them to see how many drove afterwards with the mentality "oh I can handle my liquor". Its an arrogance issue. The not me syndrome.
No one starts drugs or alcohol expecting to get hooked. It just happens. It's the nature of the substance.
Now I'm not saying that every person will get addicted. But the statistics show that many do. That is the problem. There aren't enough responsible casual users out there to justify legalizing it.
Even if pot was legalized ( I will conceed that although it is a gateway category substance/as is tobacco and alcohol....it is equally as harmless as alcohol when used in moderation ) it would open the door for other battles about the plethora of other drugs available. The argument would be "well if pot is legal why isn't X or why isn't Y"." So then the issue never ends. Before you know it, you have kids ordering joy pills at the local ice cream shop.
It simply cannot lead to anything good accross the board.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
myspace.com/justonemorebottle
How much does it cost for a year of rehab? (I honestly don't know)
If rehab is less, it makes more business sense to do it that way. People can then become productive members of society.
I don't like the 'they did it to themselves' arguement. Yes, people fuck up. If they want treatment, shouldn't you treat them with compassion. Pick them up instead of throwing them away. If someone YOU knew Juberoo (sp) was caught on a possession crime, would you rather they be given treatment to make themselves better or jail?
I'm really no expert or anything, but that just not how it works.
Why should those against the war on drugs have to pay taxes for it?
Why should those against the war in Iraq have to pay for it?
Why pay at all?
What statistics? The majority of users are not addicted. Are you saying that out of every 10 people you know who drink alcohol at least 5 are addicted?
Like kids ordering beer and cigarettes in a bar :rolleyes:
There are plenty of people who use drugs responsibly, people do it every day without getting addicted.
naděje umírá poslední
Yep you and i are on the same page.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Drunk driving and personal use of drugs are totally different animals. And why do you care if people get drunk or stoned without harming anyone?
Exactly...but people make mistakes...but like you say...fuck them, their fault. Take away everything that is potentially hazardous, is this what you're saying? Because people can't be responsible for their actions? Try looking up the number of casual users...you could also probably add a large percentage because it's stigmatized to the point that people lie about using it. So what if it opens the door to more discussion? This is a good thing...what we're doing now is not working...discussion can't hurt. Take them as they come and make decisions based on what the public wants...but give them both sides of the story and let them make an informed decision. The government keeps us in the dark about the alternatives, and the possible outcomes. No I wouldn't agree with the gov't regulating McD's. But, since we're going to get hypothetical.... if they were to regulate McD's and the public was against this move enough to demand trans-fats...and McD's continued to serve them...would it be right to go after McD's for standing up for what their customers want? How about arresting as many of their patrons as possible?
I don't fight for my right to trans-fats because it has absolutely no beneficial qualities....I can't say the same for many recreational drugs.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
I beg to differ...you're not all ears if that was all you read in my last post.
Maybe beneficial isn't the right word. But the word "recreational" is self explanatory.
recreational drug use has about as much benefit as drinking a case of beer, eating a double cheeseburger, or sitting around jerking off to porn all day. there is no benefit. but to each their own desires, and if those desires have no negative impact on anyone outside of a person's household, then nobody else should give a good goddamn what a person's doing because it's none of their fucking business. that's...pretty much all there is to it.
as per usual, i'm inexplicably eager to laugh at the inevitably ensuing response...
now if you don't mind, i'm going to sip on this beer, nibble on this dollar menu treasure, and smoke the fuck out of this bowl
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
myspace.com/justonemorebottle
Check out the video of a band up for two Mass Cann/NORML awards.
Legalize It!
http://www.mikecann.net/2009/02/best-smoking-song-poll.html
Vote on Our Best Smoking Poll with Pearl Jam song!
I agree with everything you said except the first two sentences. There are a lot of benefits to recreational drugs. I'm avoiding the "recreational" benefits because it gives too much ammo to my opponents in these debates...it is all personal opinion to do with spirituality, art, nature, oneness, relaxation/stress relief and all kinds of other 'hippie' ideals that would be pounced upon without any scientific facts or links to back them up.
However, even the harshest rec drugs still have medicinal benefits...perhaps not the ideal drug for treatment, but maybe as an alternative that should be available to people that can't afford or don't have access to pharma care? Check this post:http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4753532&postcount=32
edit: I am not condoning drug use by talking about it's benefits, am I? I know people will think that...I realize rec drugs are usually unhealthy, even dangerous, but they are not entirely pointless or useless IMO.
marijuana: glacauma, chronic pain relief, appetite stimulant, naseau supressant
cocaine: topical\local anisthetic, vasoconstrictor, relief of sore throat, used to combat altitute sickness\headache, relief of indigestion, gastritis, relief from fatigue & nervousness
mdma (extacy): originaly used as a tool for psychiatry -- used to treat PTSD, rape related trauma, anxiety, treatment of mental disorders in which patients exhibit a lack of trust, can combat the emotional distress of terminal cancer patients, relationship therapy, general psychotherapy use where therapists are incapable of penetrating the resistence of mental barricades placed up by deeply traumatized patients
BAD DRUGS.
DRUGS ARE BAD.
DRUG USERS ARE SCUM.
BAD PEOPLE.
BAD BAD BAD!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
According to one study conducted in 1962, 65 per cent of the alcoholics in the experiment stopped drinking for at least a year-and-a-half (the duration of the study) after taking one dose of LSD. The controlled trial also concluded that less than 25 per cent of alcoholics quit drinking for the same period after receiving group therapy, and less than 12 per cent quit in response to traditional psychotherapy techniques commonly used at that time......http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7951