Sorry, bub, but I was asked a fair question and it is only civil that I muster a fair answer.
That said, I can perhaps come to think of a few choice epithets for you. 
[tangent]
Just out of curiousity, is the five paragraph paper still a staple of grade school English classes? You know, the format where the first paragraph introduces the issue and contains a thesis sentence that concisely states the writer’s position? The next three paragraphs were supposed to support the thesis, and the fifth was for conclusion, including a restatement of the thesis.
I understand that emphasis has shifted towards having students reason through their beliefs, instead of just writing whatever drivel they want so long as it’s in the correct format, but I think the required structure helped me to keep my thoughts organized and to present my opinions in an organized manner.
[/tangent]
Really though, I just wanted to drop in and say that this has been a fun thread to skim through from time to time! I hope it goes on forever and, from the looks of things, it will!
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.ojp.doj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ac.txt
The following error was encountered:
Unable to determine IP address from host name for www.ojp.doj.gov
In my high school, yes, absolutely. I think it’s a terrible crutch, or at least I used to. With dougie_monty seemingly totally incapable of coming up with a “thesis”, I’m wondering if maybe I was wrong about that.
True, it may be a crutch, but sometimes a little forced structure is a good thing. To draw an analogy, it might be possible for someone to perform some avant form of jazz without having any training in the fundamentals, but they would be far more likely to benefit from being exposed to the basics of scales, chord structures and progressions, along with the various forms of jazz.
Maybe etiquette might be a better comparison in that manners are the conventions we use to facilitate social interaction, much in the same way that manuals of form are written to facilitate communication.
I can see it’s going to be one of those days… :rolleyes:
Near as I can figure, I should have stated something plainly rather than assume that the Teeming Millions would infer it.
So the ‘main point,’ if that’s the proper term, is that substances commonly used as “recreational drugs,” including but not limited to alcohol, betel nut, and leaves of certain plants growing in South America, along with tobacco, barbiturates, opiates, cannabis and marijuana are best avoided for the following reasons (as given in the thread title):
- The potential for addiction is considerable.
- The likelihood that the substance is adulterated (or even misrepresented) is great.
- The chance that a user will overdose, being potentially ignorant about the actions of drugs (aggravated if alcohol is also used) is good.
And I noted how at least one person posting agreed with me, in that the drugs are taken for “a buzz.” With slightly convoluted phrasing, my comment on that admission is “out of thine own mouth thou condemnest thyself.”
Out of interest, why do you condemn someone for doing something purely for enjoyment?
Thank you for taking a position. I’m sorry, but the OP lacked organization and the title was way too abstract to be considered as anything but a general description of the subject you wanted to discuss. Yes, stating plainly is usually much more effective than communication through inference, or osmosis for that matter.
Regarding your points:
-
The potential is considerable for some, isn’t to others, and is probably a reasonable possibility to most. While there can be a biological predisposition to chemical dependence, I think that the potential for addiction is greater to the extent that someone uses drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) as a regular means of escape instead of as an occasional recreation. Even the distinction between recreation and addiction can be easily blurred. Addiction can be defined by the development of physiological changes, but people usually use their own definitions. While one person may worry over their “addiction” to Hostess Cream Puffs, another may feel entirely comfortable with a lifetime of heavy drinking. Both have their own challenges and deal with them as they will. I’ve known enough people who are happy, well-integrated drinkers, and while I wouldn’t live their life, some of them are quite happy as they are.
-
I can’t argue with you there. Dealers aren’t pharmacists, and you never know what you’re going to get on the street. I could also see a chance that someone could develop a dependence to one substance, then overdose when they mistakenly take another drug (Pulp Fiction, anyone?)
Quite frankly, I see this as also being an argument for the legalization of marijuana. Sure, it’s rarely doped with another drug, but with legalization would allow for the regulation of the stuff.
- There’s a real chance of overdosing, also of driving while under the influence, or many other inappropriate behaviors. I think a greater problem that covers this is that there aren’t any well defined “proper behaviors” for drug use. I’m not suggesting that we discuss the etiquette of shooting heroin into your veins, but I don’t see anything wrong with someone smoking the occasional joint on a Saturday night. Somewhere between the two there’s a line to be drawn, and I think that a tolerant discussion of the subject would probably help to find it. On the other hand, I think that intolerance would cause more problems that it would resolve. One of the biggest problems I’ve seen with the few addicts I’ve known is that they have trouble telling others that they have a problem (yep, the infamous “denial”.) I think a good education is the best tool against ignorance, real or potential, and I think that all parties involved could have ample opportunity to learn.
Regarding your opposition to taking drugs to get a buzz, I’ve ridden motorcycles, played football, screwed in bed and watched scary movies, all to get a buzz. I don’t think that I was wrong to try any of those, but it might have been problematic had any of those turned into obsessions. Perhaps we can agree that it’s a good warning signal when the buzz becomes the overriding reason we do an activity.
Both cannabis and marijuana? Say it ain’t so!
Problem is, these likelihoods aren’t the same for all drugs. LSD has virtually no potential for addiction or overdose, for example, and the active dose of LSD is so small that it’s often impossible (depending on the form you get it in) for it to be laced with significant quantities of anything else.
Let me join him. Of course people take recreational drugs for “a buzz” - an altered mental state. That’s the whole point. Seriously, what other answer would you expect? Because they taste good or look pretty?
To clarify this, I should state that by “buzz” I mean “intoxication” or an equivalent word. I don’t want someone having a “buzz” if he/she and I are driving down a freeway at 60 mph; or if the other person is performing surgery on me, preparing my case for court, repairing my TV set, or rebuilding my porch. I get enjoyment out of surfing the Internet, playing keyboard music, or reading joke books.
And this, incidentally, brings me back to Dragnet, oddly enough, but not the “Blueboy” episode:
“In ‘pot circles,’ if you’re not ‘flying’ you’re a square. And ‘flying’ means you don’t know where you are or what you’re doing.”
I’ve seen some articles in newspapers and magazines in the last 15 years or so concerning drunken railroad engineers, airplane pilots, and so on; there’s no question in my mind that a drunken–or ‘flying’–driver, engineer or pilot should be removed from the job.
I also confess to using the wrong word: “cannabis and marijuana.” That should have read “cannabis and LSD,” and I must have had a lapse of attention myself–no, I was not intoxicated. I had no excuse at all. :o
Reading joke books? Jesus, are you serious? :eek:
For Christ’s sake, can you get any of your opinions from actual sources of information? Dragnet is a TV show, and it’s not a documentary either. I mean, if your views on drug use came from a lecture your parents gave you way back when and episodes of Dragnet, then why do you think you’re even capable of discussing the subject?
Nitpick: years back, a friend took about 100 hits of acid over the course of a year (his estimate was 200 hits, but I didn’t know how much and wouldn’t trust him to make an honest estimate. He was tripping almost every time that I saw him though.) I’d say he was addicted in that he was trying damned hard to avoid reality, even if he didn’t have any sort of biological dependence. Also, his not being able to sleep for several days at the end due to an almost psychotic anxiety attack could be construed as some form of an “overdose”, though not due to the toxic effects of the drug. Sure, some drugs are hard to kick, but you don’t have to be biologically dependent to be addicted.
Yes, that’s what I thought you meant by “buzz”.
I don’t want someone getting high before driving me around or performing surgery on me either. Neither would most anyone. No one is suggesting that people should get high before driving a car, performing surgery, or doing other important tasks.
Would you want someone surfing the internet, playing a keyboard, or reading a joke book while they were driving you down a freeway at 60 MPH, or performing surgery on you?
I hope you wouldn’t. Now do you see the distinction between responsible and irresponsible drug use?
Cute. Fortunately, it has no basis in reality.
Now that would be a neat trick…
As for the Dragnet quote… well, I stand by that. Joe Friday’s phrasing seems to express the point better than any sentence I could muster any other way.
When I was in high school, at one point the government teacher issued us texts dealing with psychology (granted the course material touched on psychology only tangentially). At one point the book included a droll “Peanuts” strip (Linus saying “We fanatics are really touchy!”) to make a point, as elaborated more fully by the printed caption (which was not written by Charles Schulz). In short, the medium is not the message, and I could find no better way to phrase the “flying” remark than the line spoken by Jack Webb.
Do you know anyone in “pot circles”? Do you have any evidence that it’s common for drug users to shun people who know where they are and what they’re doing, besides a line of dialogue from an old TV drama?
If not, it doesn’t matter whether or not you stand by it. It’s incorrect.
I must admit, Your aversion to all things “wicked” has certainly left you with a powerful memory. That was what, forty years ago?
Yeah, yeah, we get that you enjoy Dragnet. So? What actual evidence is there that there are “potsmoking circles” in which people are expected to be so stoned that they can’t tell where they are? Are those who are still aware of their setting shunned? This doesn’t even make sense to me.
And how much pot does it take until you’re completely unaware of where and when you are? Because it’s never happened to me.
Almost. We used those textbooks in the spring semester of 1967.
I probably should have adduced this point sooner: The issue of the potential danger of illicit drugs should be evaluated, even if only as commentary, by the medical community: One should take up the matter with his/her physician.
And we know, of course, that the U. S. Supreme Court has included in this season’s docket, a case dealing with legality of Cannabis sativa for medical uses, which, I sense, is as it should be.
Perfect - so drug use, both licit and illicit, is a matter for me and my doctor to evaluate? Makes sense to me - if they’re prescribing legal drugs, perhaps they ought to know which illegal drugs I use. With the addendum, of course, that using drugs in a way that endangers others - driving drunk or stoned, for example - is still a matter for the courts.
Would you agree with this? People have the right to make informed decisions for themselves regarding drug use?
I certainly agree that people should make “informed” decisions, but it’s obvious that there is plenty of controversy to deal with in this regard.
I have read–and bought–several editions of Sportsmanlike Driving, a standard drivers’ education textbook prepared by the American Automobile Association. One point made about drinking (in the edition I used in my own high-school years, the specific chapter was “The Sneak Attack of Alcohol and Drugs”), the point was made that even early on in someone’s session of drinking, inhibitions start to fade–and one of the very earliest is the inhibition against further drinking. As for the application of this matter to drugs, licit or not, I have no equivalent information.
So I claim that there is a question of whether it is even possible to ‘make an informed decision’–is it possible to look before one leaps?