Drugs

Please play nicely, people. I'm having to watch this thread more than any of the others now, and I'm getting just a bit tired of all the nastiness here. :q

I mean it. The bickering stops now, or I lock this thread. I'm fine with people debating, but I'm less than impressed with people's attitudes at the moment. andi has debated in previous threads concerning drugs before, and a lot of the time I've enjoyed her posts. It's not just andi though, several people have not been acting very well at all, so everyone just... can't we all get along?

The_Turned: I deleted your post. Apologies about that, but this thread has been derailed enough as it is.

GDwarf!

I wish you would post more often. You are quite the insightful scientist.

Having said that:

You should know that data always trumps an anecdote. Indeed, an anecdote rarely even counts as a datum that you can use to infer something from, because it isn't controlled for any confounding variables.

In addition, anecdotes have a huge problem with confirmation bias and the fact that you're dealing with an incredibly small sample size that isn't randomly selected.

-GDwarf

Statistics will always trump anecdote, this is true. However, when the subject in question is an individual human being, raw data will never suffice.

Now granted, the human sciences have been trying, but psychology is a relatively new field of science. They analyze data and try to piece together a cohesive narrative of the person in question; how they think, why they think, motivations for why they think the way that they do, etc... However, psychology will always be at a handicap as it is impossible to fully understand a person unless you have lived a mirror-image life of the person in question. No amount of the intellectual empathy can substitute for this. Where psychology fails, the existential philosophers succeed, in my opinion. They recognize that narratives alone do not suffice. Thus they recognize the meta narrative as the sufficient tool to explain the individual: a story within a story.

As the natural sciences are concerned with the narrative of the universe, so are the human sciences concerned with the narrative of the individual.

Now, I'm not sure if psychologists claim to be trying to fully understand the individual, but I'm sure they will piece it together in a manner that suffices for their profession. (Really, who can understand the individual better than the individual anyway?)

What does this have to do with drug use?

Even if you have a plethora of data, it takes a human being to piece the data together to make it into a cohesive narrative. Data doesn't do this magically on its own.

When a human looks at another human from a purely statistical standpoint they are at a disadvantage because humans cannot be understood through statistics alone. Even if you count emotion as data, it is quite difficult because emotion cannot be quantified, only qualified. Even then, the written language has proven inefficient in describing what it is that goes on in the construct known as the human intellect. (That's why I'm a musician) Thus, there has yet to be anything that can adequately take the place of true sympathy, in psychology and elsewhere. Ergo, if the individual in question understands oneself on an existential level, they will always be more justified in their particular viewpoints concerning personal "anecdotes" than an outside person approaching the situation from a statistical standpoint.

Originally Posted by andi

tl;dr: Aziel, your stereotypes *are* absurd and stating that somebody who only does harm to themselves is worse than someone who murders/rapes an innocent victim is not only completely stupid but an utterly monstrous idea.

Though I believe Azeil's generalization was a bit rash, I do not completely agree with you, because in many cases drug users can harm more than just themselves. I thought I'd already clarified this.

Also, on statistics vs. experience, I believe both is needed here, but not a strong amount of one or the other. The book means nothing without the street, and vice-versa. So explain your experiences Az, and if you want, balance it out with some facts too. The above post sums this up quite well, so for that I thank you, morval.

Originally Posted by Umi

Though I believe Azeil's generalization was a bit rash, I do not completely agree with you, because in many cases drug users can harm more than just themselves. I thought I'd already clarified this.

I certainly realize that drug users can physically harm more than just themselves, but the drugs do not magically give you the superhero-esque power to punch somebody in the face. A person is physically capable of harming others at almost any time, and they certainly don't and have never needed drugs in order to gain the ability to commit assault and battery or any various other crimes.

When it comes to mental harm, however, there is no way that any person can ever *definitely* commit that. Mental harm, being a subjective process by nature, is entirely in the mind of the ones who experience it - the drug user may be your personal focus and inspiration for mental anguish, but they do not and can not, in themselves, cause it.

See? :3 The very nature of the two issues creates these distinctions, and the overall point is that *a drug user can not and does not harm a person merely by snorting some powder or something a needle into their own arm*.

Ahh, but assault is not all I am referencing. My previous post:

From athealth.com


Quote:

Your statement on mental harm, however, I agree with.

Mental harm, being a subjective process by nature, is entirely in the mind of the ones who experience it - the drug user may be your personal focus and inspiration for mental anguish, but they do not and can not, in themselves, cause it.

I agree to an extent, but just being the inspiration for anguish can cause pain. I see what you're saying, though.

Originally Posted by andi

The overall point is that *a drug user can not and does not harm a person merely by snorting some powder or something a needle into their own arm*.

True. It takes more than one line. 20 lines a week and shooting up for 5 years might do the trick though.

Read Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis and figure out what it actually means and you might think other wise. I would explain more but I really must be going now. Toodles.

The main problem with making drugs illegal is that you have to punish the people who do use it responsably as well as those who drive intoxicated, etc. Plus, when it comes to screwing up the ability to make good decisions, you can't even come close to alcohol.

Originally Posted by morval

Read Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis and figure out what it actually means and you might think other wise. I would explain more but I really must be going now. Toodles.

Hey son, read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas/On the Campaign Trail '72 or anything Philip K. Dick to learn why drug use leads to awesome and badassery. Really, what the **** does "read this fiction work" provide in way of a discussion of the real world effects of drug abuse. Then again, whatever that particular short story has to do with drug abuse, inherently, is beyond both myself and Vladimir Nabokov. I trust him before you.

Originally Posted by morval

True. It takes more than one line. 20 lines a week and shooting up for 5 years might do the trick though.

Read Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis and figure out what it actually means and you might think other wise. I would explain more but I really must be going now. Toodles.

For some ungodly reason or other it refused to let me post. Let me repeat: Read fear and Loathing in Las Vegas/On the Campaign Trail '72 and learn why drug abuse is awesome. As for Kfaka's Metamorphosis, you should definitely do a more serious job of explaining it's relation to drug addiction, inherent in the story, as both myself and Vladimir Nabokov are at a loss. Note that I trust him more than you.

Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart, Ph. D.

I trust him before you.

As you should, since he is more well read than I.

Despite the fact that his comparison of average music, average literature, and average visual art displays his ignorance of music, I read his analysis anyway.

Although his perception of Metamorphosis is certainly well thought out, it is not incompatible with mine. His interpretation actually mentions in brief what it is I wanted to talk about since his analysis is taken much further than
required for the discussion at hand.

It would indeed have been more efficient for discussion if I had provided my own anecdote , however I was pressed for time on the last post. So I supplied a piece of literature that I felt would fit the bill.
I've read P. K. Dick and seen some of his stuff, but no examples came to mind that fully displayed the phenomena that I wished to talk about. It is quite possible that he has covered the specific issue I wanted to address. Kafka came to mind before Dick. That is all.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make was the phenomena known as cognitive dissonance. I would assume this phenomena is a fairly common occurrence when a key family member begins resorting to heavy drug use. Depending upon the relationship of the loved one and the drug user, it could conceivably lead to serious and even semi-permanent emotional/psychological harm to the surrounding loved ones (especially young children incapable of dealing with such emotional/psychological conflict). Although--as andi states--it takes more than just repeated use of drugs to implement that much trauma, it is not unreasonable to believe that the perpetuated use of drugs are capable of promoting and enhancing the advancement of such a phenomena, even if the initial underlying problem was something besides the actual drug addiction.

I would elaborate more on Kafka, but since you deem Metamorphosis to be irrelevant to the discussion I will cease.

Yes I'm hipcritical.
though I do say that drug addics are people to, I however feel that meth heads are freaks not because they do the drugs but what the meth does to them. meth was invented by Hitler in WW2 as a way of makeing a super soilder that could stay on gaurd 24 7, however it failed and so we know the orgin of methenfetimean or however its spelled!

Originally Posted by Lurrrre!

Yes I'm hipcritical.
though I do say that drug addics are people to, I however feel that meth heads are freaks not because they do the drugs but what the meth does to them. meth was invented by Hitler in WW2 as a way of makeing a super soilder that could stay on gaurd 24 7, however it failed and so we know the orgin of methenfetimean or however its spelled!

Methamphetamine was first synthesized in the late 1890s in Japan. It was used in ww2 by the Germans but they had no part in its discovery.

I'm just putting this out there, andi.
Seeing as how you know all this drug crap, do you just study it, or do you do it?
Because you seem to know quite a lot about this topic.

Me? I've done plenty of them (though I don't regularly, and have rules about which drugs I would never ever personally touch), known plenty of people who have done plenty of them (some turning out better for the experiences, some worse), and have studied almost all of them fairly in-depth to try and understand what exactly they *do* to people, as opposed to what I can simply see.

:::shrugs::: I dunno, I guess I just know the usual, I just tend to have a fairly objective way of looking at things like this.

:3 You can feel free to ask me any more intimate/detailed questions about any of these subjects over PM. I don't know how well most discussion would fit into an SD thread, but if you can make it work there I'll be more than happy to make a long rambling post or two.

I completely understand, my friend, i apologize for the whole angry thing earlier, i tend to have an attitude problem...
I'll make sure to come to you if i have any questions
ive done quite alot of crap too, but now i keep it down to the happy drug, which, as Katt Williams says, is a plant, not a drug.

I tend to stick to the gases and the cough medicines, myself.

Pot bores me out of my mind, personally, and hallucinogens are a "very rare" sort of thing for me. As long as I can do it on a day off, I come out of it without a hangover from hell, and it doesn't get me arrested, I'm up for doing it all the time.

I'm heading into medicine and having anything on your record tends to completely disqualify you from that career path in the states... creates some severe limiting factors. But thankfully, if you know how to look, you can usually find a legal substitute for almost every sort of illegal drug that won't turn you into a husk of leather in less than six months of regular use.

Originally Posted by andi

I tend to stick to the gases and the cough medicines, myself.

Pot bores me out of my mind, personally, and hallucinogens are a "very rare" sort of thing for me. As long as I can do it on a day off, I come out of it without a hangover from hell, and it doesn't get me arrested, I'm up for doing it all the time.

I'm heading into medicine and having anything on your record tends to completely disqualify you from that career path in the states... creates some severe limiting factors. But thankfully, if you know how to look, you can usually find a legal substitute for almost every sort of illegal drug that won't turn you into a husk of leather in less than six months of regular use.

It may be a criminal record that disqualifies you, but it certainly doesn't look good if you just used the legal substitute instead either.

Inspiration is by definition, causal.
I can create mental anguish, in fact, the purpose behind some forms of torture is to cause mental anguish.

Anyone can create mental anguish in another individual, you just have to stress them out.

Drug addicts are quite commonly thought of as a "stressor". There is no argument regarding this. It's futile because it's the way things are.

The usage of drugs changes a person, in the case of many drugs, they leave the user worse off. These changes can harm other people, both physically and mentally.

To think the opposite were true, would be to ignore so much that goes on in this world. It's like saying people don't get drunk and kill people with their cars. It happens, and it occurs on a far more frequent basis than many people would like.
Just like people get "hopped up" on PCP, and eat their families.

This topic has begun to look more like people trying to justify their behavior.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

This topic has begun to look more like people trying to justify their behavior.

When this topic started, you said that I obviously couldn't have had any experience with this in relation to "flesh and blood", and that instead I could only have gotten my information from "internet statistics" and "dusty books". And now, after my last post, I'm suddenly using this thread to justify all of the horrible traumas I've committed and all those poor families (and kitties!) that I've eaten while I was on all those crazy devil drugs?

:/ Seriously, can you please stop throwing absurd and repeatedly contradictory ad hominems out there and instead focus on the discussion at hand?

Really, there are so many times I can explain the fact that "it's not the drug use that cause stress, it's the person's own grief that causes the stress".

Let's take me as an example.

If I was doing drugs and I showed no effects to anyone in the world and nobody knew I was doing it, would anyone be stressed? No.

If I was doing drugs and I showed adverse personal effects and everyone in the world knew I was doing it, would everyone be stressed? Most certainly not.

If I was doing drugs and I showed adverse personal effects and everyone in the world knew I was doing it, would some people be stressed? Possibly.

Stress requires two things - it requires a "stressor" (something that traditionally is thought to create stress), and it requires a "stress reaction" (an increase in adrenaline within a person to the point that it causes them to mentally become distressed).

Any sort of change at all can be considered a stressor, and any sort of mental change as a result of a stressor is a stress reaction. None of these things are inherently good or bad, and each person has their own individual reactions to varyingly strong stressors.

There are two sorts of drug users - one type is the functional/casual user. These people are the sort of people who have a day free to spend as they please and decide to spend it with a joint for themselves or an eightball with friends or whatever else they please. These people's actions do not adversely affect anyone around them, either directly or indirectly. If a person decides to spend half a day reading a new book they got, they will not cause any reasonable person stress. In the same way, a relatively small amount of money spent on drugs that are done privately and do not affect anyone else can not cause a person stress unless they have an irrational hatred/taboo against said drug use.

The other sort of drug user is the non-functional user/addict. This is the sort of person who will take the money that they were supposed to save up for something and spend it. This is, of course, a gradual slope by nature. Does it cause a reasonable person serious stress if a person spends that $20 they had on the desk for the next time the ice cream man came by on a few grams of pot?

One can assume that drug abuse that leads to a serious depreciation in quality of life will cause stress in a reasonable person, but this stress isn't caused by the drug abuse at all, but merely by its indirect results. If a person is a billionaire, no amount of drugs that they could use would ever affect their financial situation, and if a person is a lovebunny when they're high and a total jerk when they're sober then the drugs certainly won't indirectly affect any person's emotional well-being.

It's a matter of relatives and subjectivity. Drugs themselves do not cause any of these adverse reactions, but obsession over anything can. If you're going to criticize drug users for letting themselves sometimes obsess over getting that next high, you might as well have the same loathing for the kid who spends a lot of time playing video games and gets a B in that class he's taking instead of the A he could have gotten without them.

This is, of course, even assuming that a person reacts in the way that our stereotypical "reasonable person" does. And not everybody does. I've met people who have had three member of their family die in a week and who have shrugged it off as just "something that happens". Some people call those sort of people kick back, some call them zen, some are chill, and some of them are crazy. While you might be the sort of person who lets people's every little actions and decisions affect them mentally, there are a lot of people who aren't. :3

You obviously try to argue the mundane against that which it bears no relevance.
I don't give a flying crap about people if they aren't hurting others.

You and any people like you are irrelevant to my viewpoint. You simply do not factor in.
I have not contended that every drug addict fits into a singular category.
Taking this into mind, you should see that you have no grounds for argument with me.


You are simply arguing irrelevancies against me. I know what drugs are capable of, and I am of a mindset which prefers adknowledgement to ignorance.
Perhaps you adhere to the reverse?

You wish to be ignorant of the damage drugs can cause to a person and what harm that damaged person can inflict on others, then do so, but don't come and try to argue that it doesn't happen.

It's high time people stopped being flippantly ignorant of negative consequences.