Using drugs makes you stupid.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

More wishy washy relativism.

Emotion and reason aren't exactly separate.
How is prohibition not an issue of personal liberty? How is continuing a failing "war on drugs" that's a major waste of tax money and causing about as much damage as it's supposed to prevent, not "drilling holes in the ship we're all riding in"; just because it amuses the "war on drugs" supporters since
This is all for amusement.
?
The very idea that someone who has been tampering with their pleasure centers through chemical abuse is somehow in a position to make rational decisions about their "pleasure button" is ridiculous.
Even if that were the case, you first have to use before you can be chemically unfit for rational decisions. If not for those that follow, you're responsible for that first act of drug use. Invariably the individual is responsible for his actions, no one else is to blame.

Tomorrow I will give pee wee herman a .40 revolver and tell him to play a harmless prank on you by making it go pop while you take a shower. Of course he'll be excused from murder since it was his first time firing a gun and he didn't know any better yet, and so will I since it was my first time playing this kind of prank, so there was no way for me to know he wouldn't understand it was a joke of very bad taste till after he'd actually gone out and done it.

"There's no way he could've known the trouble that was in store from "just" pulling a trigger". Firearm tragedies are all over the news and have been for decades (all the way back to the wild west in fact, an integral part of American history), but honestly how could he've known? Knowing these things ahead of time is simply too much to ask.


And then there's the self-medication problem. Again MSimon put it right: govt isn't a solution there either.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Betruger wrote:More wishy washy relativism.

Yes, unlike the stuff YOU guys are shoveling! :)


Betruger wrote: Emotion and reason aren't exactly separate.
How is prohibition not an issue of personal liberty?


When it deals with something so dangerous that people shouldn't mess with it. Here's an example. During FIRE season, the state often issues a blanket fire ban. (Prohibition in your vernacular.) Anyone caught using fire outdoors can be fined, and for subsequent offenses can be jailed.

You see, your personal liberty stops when your insistence on doing something stupid becomes a threat to others.

Betruger wrote: How is continuing a failing "war on drugs" that's a major waste of tax money and causing about as much damage as it's supposed to prevent, not "drilling holes in the ship we're all riding in"; just because it amuses the "war on drugs" supporters since
This is all for amusement.
?

How is all the energy used in bailing water out of a ship doing any good, even when you are barely keeping up with the water flowing in?


Betruger wrote:
The very idea that someone who has been tampering with their pleasure centers through chemical abuse is somehow in a position to make rational decisions about their "pleasure button" is ridiculous.
Even if that were the case, you first have to use before you can be chemically unfit for rational decisions. If not for those that follow, you're responsible for that first act of drug use.

This presumes one can make a rational decision about something they truly don't understand until they've tried it, and at that point it is too late. The effect of the "Pleasure Button" is well known. Very few can resist the urge to push it once it's activated. The first push is one too many. Could YOU resist something better than sex?



Do you think all those cigarette smokers knew that tobacco would kill them? It took DECADES for people to realize this. It took decades before people realized that Opium derivatives were dangerous and caused addiction!


History ought to be a guide. The fact that it truly screws up so many people's lives ought to be enough warning for anyone, the problem is, there is so much ignorance out there (and propaganda by the Marijuana corps) that people do not have the ability to properly weigh the consequences.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Diogenes wrote:Yes, unlike the stuff YOU guys are shoveling! :)
Show how the stuff we're "shoveling" is so.
When it deals with something so dangerous that people shouldn't mess with it. Here's an example. During FIRE season, the state often issues a blanket fire ban. (Prohibition in your vernacular.) Anyone caught using fire outdoors can be fined, and for subsequent offenses can be jailed.
Apples and oranges. Neither fire nor dry vegetation are biochemically intricate and self-determining beings or interactions.
You see, your personal liberty stops when your insistence on doing something stupid becomes a threat to others.
There is no inherent support for total prohibition in this premise. Owning or using guns isn't automatically a threat to others. Owning or using drugs isn't inherently a threat to others. Using guns or drugs in ways that harm others is punishable by law, and it's using them in that fashion that's harmful to others and consequently punishable. It's abuse, not use, that's harmful and duly punishable.

How is all the energy used in bailing water out of a ship doing any good, even when you are barely keeping up with the water flowing in?
That's a metaphor for the war on drugs sinking faster than people can help?

Betruger wrote:
The very idea that someone who has been tampering with their pleasure centers through chemical abuse is somehow in a position to make rational decisions about their "pleasure button" is ridiculous.
Even if that were the case, you first have to use before you can be chemically unfit for rational decisions. If not for those that follow, you're responsible for that first act of drug use.
This presumes one can make a rational decision about something they truly don't understand until they've tried it, and at that point it is too late.
Bogus. Show how the dangers of drugs is something that can't be understood till experienced first hand. How can you argue what the dangers are? Have you been an addict of every single drug to the point of absolute bottom out and everything in between (stealing relatives' property to buy more drugs etc)? If not, you "truly don't understand".

This is equivalent to arguing sex ed is no use as a preventive tool.

The effect of the "Pleasure Button" is well known. Very few can resist the urge to push it once it's activated. The first push is one too many. Could YOU resist something better than sex?
Fallacious. No, but I don't see why you couldn't also admit you need help, and stick yourself into rehab. I can't see why you wouldn't stick someone into rehab either. I've had one friend who injected some kind of crap.. Don't recall what it was (was too young) but it was one of the drugs you prepare by spoon+lighter. He got so deep into it that there was no way he could deny he was out of control and needed rehab. I took him there myself. Others saw as much and wised up. Where is your evidence, other than dramatic anecdotes from famous people, that the dangers of drugs can't possibly be comprehended from seeing what it does to others?

And you haven't answered to the fact that responsibility for the first use is individual.

Do you think all those cigarette smokers knew that tobacco would kill them? It took DECADES for people to realize this. It took decades before people realized that Opium derivatives were dangerous and caused addiction!
Why not include the couple thousand years that opium was used without knowing the exact medical/biochemical consequences of use, to make it even more dramatic sounding? What's your point either way? This isn't inherent support for prohibition. You don't write laws for decades or centuries past, but for the present and near future.

History ought to be a guide. The fact that it truly screws up so many people's lives ought to be enough warning for anyone, the problem is, there is so much ignorance out there (and propaganda by the Marijuana corps) that people do not have the ability to properly weigh the consequences.
Faulty argument. A failure to correctly inform people once, doesn't mean it's impossible to do it correctly. In this respect history is no guide. Nowhere in history was man ever equipped with technology to understand the exact science of drugs. Nor did he have such ubiquitous (and ever more in the future) IT to distribute the "correct" knowledge to "properly weigh the consequences".

Was gonna say more but, ironically enough, I'm headed to the loo to paint the head because I partied too hard.
Last edited by Betruger on Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

Diogenes wrote:
Betruger wrote:One data point?

A journey of a thousand miles must begin with the first step.


Actually, i'm not going to belabor the point. If I were so inclined, I could find more examples than anyone would care to look at. While this may be the tactics that the proponents of drug usage follow, I don't think it serves any worthwhile purpose.

As this particular article was timely, I thought it was appropriate to post it as I discovered it. From time to time, I may find another example of a drug addicted criminals being incredibly stupid, and I will post it for everyone's amusement. This is the same methodology I follow for posting Media Bias, Bad Democrats and "Doomed" news.

You may, if you wish, tally the "Data Points," but anyone that's had experience with these people are fully aware that this is not an outlier, but an example of their consistently stupid behavior, and how it adversely impacts others.
Your methodology suffers from selection bias, since people acting like morons when not under the influence is not news because they do it all the time.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Betruger wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Yes, unlike the stuff YOU guys are shoveling! :)
Show how the stuff we're "shoveling" is so.
If you can't see it for yourself, I cannot show it to you. I'll give you one example though. MSimon has alleged (at least a half dozen times.) that it's easier for children to get Drugs than beer. I pointed out to him (probably 5 times or so.) a Rock of Crack costs $20.00, and a crack fiend will beat the shit out of you if you try to take it from them. A beer costs $1.00, and people who buy it by the 18 or 30 pack, won't even notice when one (or even several) is missing. No matter how many times I point this out, He still repeats "Children can get drugs easier than Beer."

What can I make of this but shoveling "stuff"?

Betruger wrote:
When it deals with something so dangerous that people shouldn't mess with it. Here's an example. During FIRE season, the state often issues a blanket fire ban. (Prohibition in your vernacular.) Anyone caught using fire outdoors can be fined, and for subsequent offenses can be jailed.
Apples and oranges. Neither fire nor dry vegetation are biochemically intricate and self-determining beings or interactions.
And when they are combined with stupid people and flames, there still isn't! :)
Betruger wrote:
You see, your personal liberty stops when your insistence on doing something stupid becomes a threat to others.
There is no inherent support for total prohibition in this premise. Owning or using guns isn't automatically a threat to others. Owning or using drugs isn't inherently a threat to others.
Absolutely right. Keep the stuff in the trunk and never use it, drugs won't hurt you. Guns will even protect you while they're in the trunk, if you let enough people know you've got them, and that they can come out of the trunk and do their business.

Guns CAN be misused (Like firing them into the air recklessly.) But drugs can ONLY be misused. Drugs, when used properly, are like guns used recklessly. There's a good chance someone is going to get hurt.

Betruger wrote: Using guns or drugs in ways that harm others is punishable by law, and it's using them in that fashion that's harmful to others and consequently punishable. It's abuse, not use, that's harmful and duly punishable.
Misusing guns is wrong because you increase the chances that someone is going to get hurt. Misusing guns is very much like using drugs normally in this regard. Sometimes the drugs don't kill until years later, like the bullet that paralyzed but didn't kill till years later.

Betruger wrote:
How is all the energy used in bailing water out of a ship doing any good, even when you are barely keeping up with the water flowing in?
That's a metaphor for the war on drugs sinking faster than people can help?
It's a metaphor for sinking if you DON'T bail. Fighting the war on drugs is the same thing as trying to bail water. If you stop, you are going to sink. I personally worry we are going to sink anyways, but from the much bigger holes caused by financial mismanagement from Washington. That doesn't mean that the smaller social holes caused by the drug scourge isn't significant.

Betruger wrote:
Betruger wrote: Even if that were the case, you first have to use before you can be chemically unfit for rational decisions. If not for those that follow, you're responsible for that first act of drug use.
This presumes one can make a rational decision about something they truly don't understand until they've tried it, and at that point it is too late.
Bogus. Show how the dangers of drugs is something that can't be understood till experienced first hand.
Easy. Look at all the crash test dummies who have crashed! :)
Either they WANT the misery they have chosen, ( a thoroughly ridiculous notion) or they don't know what they are getting in to.
Betruger wrote: How can you argue what the dangers are? Have you been an addict of every single drug to the point of absolute bottom out and everything in between (stealing relatives' property to buy more drugs etc)? If not, you "truly don't understand".
We can find out the response to various chemicals by testing them on rats. The same information can be had by observing the test results on the volunteer human subjects. :) They end up "F*cked up like a test rat!"
(A friend of mine's favorite saying. Former Cocaine\Heroin user. Now he just drinks a lot. )

Betruger wrote: This is equivalent to arguing sex ed is no use as a preventive tool.

Not seeing the equivalence here.
Betruger wrote:
The effect of the "Pleasure Button" is well known. Very few can resist the urge to push it once it's activated. The first push is one too many. Could YOU resist something better than sex?

Fallacious. No, but I don't see why you couldn't also admit you need help, and stick yourself into rehab. I can't see why you wouldn't stick someone into rehab either. I've had one friend who injected some kind of crap.. Don't recall what it was (was too young) but it was one of the drugs you prepare by spoon+lighter. He got so deep into it that there was no way he could deny he was out of control and needed rehab. I took him there myself. Others saw as much and wised up. Where is your evidence, other than dramatic anecdotes from famous people, that the dangers of drugs can't possibly be comprehended from seeing what it does to others?
What evidence is better than that? (to those who have seen it themselves.) You yourself pointed out that it was firsthand witness that scared others straight.

Betruger wrote: And you haven't answered to the fact that responsibility for the first use is individual.
It isn't. It's mostly the responsibility of whomever exposed them to it. If it wasn't provided, they couldn't be tempted.

For some people, drugs are no different from handing them a box and telling them to pull the pin out of the top, unknowingly connected to a hand grenade within. For others, it's a cute magic trick. People don't know which genetic box they've been handed till after the effects have manifested themselves.

It's like the Lady and the Tiger story. Deadly for some, but harmless to others. It is irresponsible to push people into confronting such a choice. Like the Whopper from "War Games" said. "The only winning move is not to play. "
Betruger wrote:
Do you think all those cigarette smokers knew that tobacco would kill them? It took DECADES for people to realize this. It took decades before people realized that Opium derivatives were dangerous and caused addiction!
Why not include the couple thousand years that opium was used without knowing the exact medical/biochemical consequences of use, to make it even more dramatic sounding? What's your point either way? This isn't inherent support for prohibition. You don't write laws for decades or centuries past, but for the present and near future.
The point is that nobody understood how deadly they were until enough time had passed that people noticed a pattern. It isn't instantaneously obvious, and as a result, people get sucked into short term fun for long term misery. (sounds like our economic system. Spending other people's money is very much like a drug. It releases dopamine and seratonin, etc. just like a drug does, and THAT's why irresponsible members of congress can't control our spending. )
I've long said, "stop the congressional junkies from getting their fix! "

Betruger wrote:
History ought to be a guide. The fact that it truly screws up so many people's lives ought to be enough warning for anyone, the problem is, there is so much ignorance out there (and propaganda by the Marijuana corps) that people do not have the ability to properly weigh the consequences.
Faulty argument. A failure to correctly inform people once, doesn't mean it's impossible to do it correctly. In this respect history is no guide. Nowhere in history was man ever equipped with technology to understand the exact science of drugs. Nor did he have such ubiquitous (and ever more in the future) IT to distribute the "correct" knowledge to "properly weigh the consequences".
You don't need a degree in biochemical engineering to understand that screwing with your endocrinal systems will F*ck you up. One need only look at the results of so many examples to understand the threat. A threat that might not be readily apparent from looking at your gas spectrometer.

Betruger wrote: Was gonna say more but, ironically enough, I'm headed to the loo to paint the head because I partied too hard.
My sympathies.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

IntLibber wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Betruger wrote:One data point?

A journey of a thousand miles must begin with the first step.


Actually, i'm not going to belabor the point. If I were so inclined, I could find more examples than anyone would care to look at. While this may be the tactics that the proponents of drug usage follow, I don't think it serves any worthwhile purpose.

As this particular article was timely, I thought it was appropriate to post it as I discovered it. From time to time, I may find another example of a drug addicted criminals being incredibly stupid, and I will post it for everyone's amusement. This is the same methodology I follow for posting Media Bias, Bad Democrats and "Doomed" news.

You may, if you wish, tally the "Data Points," but anyone that's had experience with these people are fully aware that this is not an outlier, but an example of their consistently stupid behavior, and how it adversely impacts others.
Your methodology suffers from selection bias, since people acting like morons when not under the influence is not news because they do it all the time.
That may be so, but it has the advantage of being unnecessary to prove it for all cases. It only need be proven for some threshold percentage of population. Then all we have to decide is that this threshold of population deserves the protection of the laws that will then apply equally to everybody.

I think that it can be demonstrated that it brings down the IQ level of any user. Geniuses might become ordinary, ordinary might become morons, and morons might become imbeciles, Imbeciles might become liberals. :)

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Evidently drugs make you more productive. At least in the case of high tech workers.

Drug Testing Lowers High Tech Productivity

There may of course be other factors at work. But is interesting.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Imbeciles might become liberals and conservatives.

Or as we like to say in the libertarian realm: believers in the power of the state to do good. Or in the short hand form statists. Or in the common vernacular fascists.
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. Benito Mussolini
I have always been an enemy of the State. Not totally. But nearly so. In accord with our founding father:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Geo. Washington
Our founders thought the state should be on a very short leash. Chained to the deck with a VERY short chain. Most of what passes for politics today follows from: "there is no limit to the good that can be done by putting a gun to a man's head" liberals and conservatives alike. As a friend of mine likes to say: "we are doomed".

There are only Progressives in politics these days. In the early days of the Progressive movement Economics and Morality were combined. Now a days the movement has bifurcated. We have Liberal Progressives who want the state to "fix" economics and Conservative Progressives who want the state to "fix" morality.

In any case the Progressives are now in control of America left and right. Which is why you see Government "Conservatives" working with the left some times on economics and Government "Liberals" sometimes working with the right on morals. It is the common interest in the power of the state keeps them joined at the hip.

I like the Tea Parties (so far) in that they seem to be more libertarian oriented. And there seems to be an interest growing in libertarian politicians such as Rand Paul.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/

What encourages me in my war against the statists is that a little over half the country sees the Tea Party in a favorable light.
Last edited by MSimon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

"When you get in bed with the government, you're going to get more than just a good night's sleep." RR
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

What a lame bunch of arguments.

If you use hallucinogens, odds are excellent you will perform well below your ability. Hallucinogen users have better than a 5,000% chance of developing a psychosis. That doesn't happen with alcohol.

We could go on and on, but truth is it's all futile. The reasons we've allowed certain drugs like nicotine and alcohol, and not others; is that the others screw people's lives up on such a regular basis, that they prove they are not acceptable to general, human society.

If you want to use illegal drugs--go ahead! If you don't hurt or kill anyone, there are almost no real consequences. We don't prosecute druggies, unless and until they injure others. When they do injure others, they deserve to have their balls ripped out and shoved down their throats for their vast selfishness.

And they don't even suffer that. . .so stop the whining.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

choff
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

There's one very simple reason why Marijuana will not be legalized on any large scale, and that reason is, like it's pseudonym, it smells like s**t, and not just any s**t either, but the worst of the worst, with skunk thrown in on the side.
The majority of people just flat out can't stand the stink, it's so bad people are more than happy to report neighbours that use to the cops. They cheer them on when the neighbourhood stoner gets hauled off to jail, cause the improvement in air quality is such a relief.
The stoner clique are so arrogant, rationalizing and self righteous they flat out don't realize just how badly they smell or the effect it has on non-users. They won't even use inhalalators, they can't contain their enthusiasm to share the stink.
In those areas that legalize, don't be surprised if the non-users start to organize in protest.
CHoff

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

GIThruster wrote:What a lame bunch of arguments.

If you use hallucinogens, odds are excellent you will perform well below your ability. Hallucinogen users have better than a 5,000% chance of developing a psychosis. That doesn't happen with alcohol.

We could go on and on, but truth is it's all futile. The reasons we've allowed certain drugs like nicotine and alcohol, and not others; is that the others screw people's lives up on such a regular basis, that they prove they are not acceptable to general, human society.

If you want to use illegal drugs--go ahead! If you don't hurt or kill anyone, there are almost no real consequences. We don't prosecute druggies, unless and until they injure others. When they do injure others, they deserve to have their balls ripped out and shoved down their throats for their vast selfishness.

And they don't even suffer that. . .so stop the whining.
You know I could post a bunch of links refuting your points but why should I bother? You won't read them.

As to your point about injuring others - there are 800,000 arrests for marijuana per year in America. This country must be a much more violent place that I could have ever imagined.

Not only that the DOJ says the only drug statistically associated with violence is alcohol.

Time to bring back alcohol prohibition and shove the alcohol bottles down their throats when the alkys are caught and break it off for those alcohol drinkers getting into violent arguments. And you will love this:
From my experience as a judge dealing with crime, i can say that about 80 % of all violent crime happens with at least one party intoxicated with alcohol. Number of violent crimes under the influence of marijuana i´ve had in the last 7 years: maybe 2 or 3 out of several hundred cases

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/libertaria ... alization/
D*mn alkys. And if they commit domestic violence? Shove the bottle up their a$$es and break it off and then twist. Violently.

And the drunks that kill with their autos? Death penalty. With sufficiently draconian laws we can end this alcohol scourge. Once and for all.

And don't give me the malarkey that it was tried. It was never tried hard enough. We did not kill near enough people to make it sufficiently unattractive. Put a million or six alkys to death and the rest will get the message. If we put to death a mere 17,000 alkys a day we can get rid of six million of them in under a year.

I hate alcohol and the damage it does to society. With a passion that knows no bounds.

Am I in the proper spirit of things?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

GIThruster wrote:It's true that using drugs does make you stupid, and that stupid people are often more inclined to use drugs. It's not true that all stupid people use drugs or that all drug users are stupid people.
Caffiene, an addictive drug, has a measurable "positive" effect on intellegence. Indeed, modern technological civilization started in the country that stopped each afternoon for their "cuppa".

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Tom Ligon wrote: The argument against criminalization of drugs is more a question of not wishing to make violent criminals rich in a vain attempt to protect the stupid from themselves.
Here, here!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Diogenes wrote: Stupid people do stupid things, by definition. It is my intent to demonstrate that most drug users end up becoming stupid people. :)
MOST drug users become SMARTER thru the use of their drug of choice. See my above re caffiene.

Post Reply