Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
That's cute.
Fun fact: agriculture predates capitalism. True story.
file:///Keedspills.jpg">file:///Keedspills.jpg">file:///Keedspills.jpg">file:///Keedspills.jpg">file:///Keedspills.jpg">File:Keedspills.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/file:///Keedsp&hellip">file:///Keedsp&hellip">file:///Keedsp&hellip">file:///Keedsp&hellip">file:///Keedsp&hellip">file:///Keedsp&hellip">file:///Keedsp&hellip">file:///Keedsp&hellip">file:///Keedsp&hellip">File:Keedsp…
On a more personal note, I am a big fan of trying (almost) everything at least once, but meth is definitely not my favorite. Some time ago my partner of 8 years (or so) was casually doing speed, to occasionally get him through long workweeks (he was in the film indusry), then to have some fun on his days off, then to get through the next week 'cause he hadn't had enough sleep... You get the picture. It took a couple of years to get from occasional to frequent, but it got there. I got to learn what speed psychosis is (NOT FUN), and he ended up dead at 36. Between that, another friend who got AIDS from dirty needles, and the violence I saw from otherwise sane and loving people (see speed psychosis, above) I would say meth deserves its crappy reputation.
It's just that drugs will always be there, and so far, making them all illegal has made things worse.
And mydriasis's other point, that drugs affect people entirely differently, is also valid. I think anecdotal evidence ("I've done coke/meth/cigarettes and I'm not an addict!") proves nothing except that you were lucky enough to have a brain composition that didn't become dependent on those drugs to feel happy, awake, alive. That doesn't mean there isn't a drug that would get you there, though. But it's best not to find out.
All one must do to see how it could be better is do a little research into how other countries (Portugal, the Netherlands) are doing. It's turning out pretty well.
Again, I think we really agree quite a bit.
I remember doing "crank" which is the same as meth today (probably), I did cocaine, and I've done meth. Cocaine was the worst for me as far as side effects go.
When my children were younger, I did meth daily for a span of about 3 years. I was a single mother, with a full-time job, and two active boys! With meth I felt like a superwoman - I was slim, attractive, on-the-ball, nailing my job, and it did make sex more fun!
One day, driving home from my dealer (I'd get a weekly supply so I didn't have to be running around all the time), I realized that I was either going to be an addict or caught as a criminal, and I couldn't imagine my kids having to go through either.
I stopped shortly after that, and have never gone back. Sometimes I miss it (especially when I'm feeling fat!), but I always get over that eventually.
Yes, this is anecdotal, and everyone is different. I just wanted to go on record and say it is possible to do a drug, outgrow it, and move along.
I still smoke pot and drink.
Sometimes they have the decency to wait, and they all come to get petted as soon as I'm done orgasming, but honestly, it's not much better.
If he was attracted to cats, he'd probably be masturbating with the cat, or getting the cat to lick him or something. You can't just interrupt whenever a cat gets in contact with you or you'd never have an orgasm.
About the enlarging problem, he doesn't need to enlarge his penis for his girlfriend to say all these things. He might want to try if that alone works for him.
My cat looks up from his nap w/ a confused look on his face and a wad of my gametes & fluid hanging down. Funniest thing I'd ever seen. (this is pre-internet, so funny cat pics weren't ubiquitous.) I laughed so hard, my roommate knocked and came in to see what was so funny. Awwkwarrrrdddd....
And you clearly missed the point.
The fact that food needs to be specially labelled as locally grown or free range is because the industry shifted away from that in the first place. What do you think was the incentive for factory farming?
Look, I don't think capitalism is the root of all evil, but if you actually think the "invisible hand" works in our best interest (which seems to be what you're implying by crediting capitalism with 'organic food') then you best get an imaginary friend that doesn't make you vote stupid instead.
Look, I respect what you're saying, but I do feel that part of it it's slightly misleading.
"The receptors in the neurological pathways are physically altered once the methamphetamine bonds to the dendrites in the synaptic cleft."
Um, okay, that's true of dozens (hundreds, possibly) of drugs that act as receptor agonist/antagonists. Alcohol is believed to bind GABA receptors, for example. Also, no disrespect, but I was under the impression that the agonism at the postsynapic terminal was less important than reuptake inhibition and increased neurotransmitter release in terms of how meth exerts it's effects.
If you want to scare people with science, tell them it's a neurotoxin.
Don't get me wrong, I essentially agree with what you're saying, but to the best of my knowledge, the scientific argument against methamphetamine isn't that occaisional use will cause cognitive impairments, but rather that occaisonal use is unlikely and HEAVY use causes cognitive impairments. I mean, it's used as a pharmaceutical. The LW is pretty obviously wrong and I'm against academic preformance enhancement (you'd bettee believe it in a competitive program) so I'm with you there.
Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that if you've ever read any studies suggesting that one time meth use has appreciable effects on the brain (aside from the typical-to-any-drug ones you mentioned, so I permanent ones) I would love it if you shared them with me. I mean that sincerely.
And yes, he's leapt up and on me when I've been occupied like vanilla boyfriend.
Didn't incorporate him in my activity (I don't think that's something either of us wants) but have given him a pet or two to get shut him up.
Me on top, enthusiastically doing my thing with my wife enthusiastically doing her thing below. Suddenly, I feel something on my back. Umm... WTF? The cat is there, with a look on his face like, "Woo-hooo!"
Apparently some cats are pervs, too.
PS- Yes, the cat was neutered.
Two cat stories -
3 couples sharing a big house -- party downstairs. The silent time when the music and talk all stops for a minute. A voice from upstairs "Oh look, kitty wants to play with it!" Then a horrible hurt yelp from the person who got played with (is it a big mouse?) Then the sound of a cat hitting a wall and a door being slammed.
One time I woke up with my tomcat on my pillow licking himself about 3 inches from my face. I pushed him off the bed. He went and peed in my clean laundry.
Cats don't get human priorities or needs at all.
Actually one cat I knew did once -- in his own context as predator. I had chewed him out for stealing my steak off the kitchen counter when my back was turned. Several days later he dragged an almost dead rat to me to make up for his error.
Cats -- you love em or you hate em -- but they don't make love with you or you with them -- not possible
With drugs it is clear that your mileage may vary. What you take, how it affects you, how much you enjoy it, how much you can control it, and what damage it does or benefits it provides are different for each chemical and each person.
I am the Tom Bombadil or drug users. I can take them or leave them. They can be fun or interesting, but when I am ready to do others things I can walk away from the cookie jar, a round of drinks on a bar, a jar of pills in a bottle, or a pile of coke on a mirror. Pot specifically actually makes me more active, creative, insightful, compassionate and hungry.
My advice to AEP would be to investigate the core of his desire. I see a more BDSM interest buried (only slightly) in there, but almost to the point where I want to call it vanilla BDSM (what a wonderful oxymoron). The theme appears to more about control, submission and (consensual) pain than about dick size. There are plenty of other ways to achieve that same result using toys or some other form of pleasure.
But as always, be safe and have fun!
Ritalin makes you cranky, nervous, and severely nauseated. (I had trouble keeping food down for almost a year as a kid.) It gives you tunnel-vision, which is only good when you're trying to memorize facts, NOT when you're studying a creative subject like English. And I know it's addictive for the simple reason that I was desensitized to it scary-quick. I was switched to Adderall when my doctor realized that I weighed 70 lb, was taking 45 mg a day, and it STILL wasn't working right.
There is no good reason to take meth. Seriously, if you want to stay up all night, caffeine is readily--and legally--available. Amphetamines are Class A controlled drugs for a damn reason.
Clear case cat fucker.
I was prescribed every ADHD medication available during the 90's except Concerta. I've taken the drugs, I've read the damn labels. I know what I'm talking about. Ritalin is meth. Adderall is meth. The only ADHD medication I know of that isn't meth is Strattera.
People have jobs and some even have families and still manage to study without resorting to drugs or even coffee (I never drank coffee until I took a 5 a.m. shift job). I never had to pull an all-nighter either.
Ritalin and other prescription drugs aren't cut with other substances like meth is. Ritalin is speed and so is meth. Meth is adulterated speed. Ritalin is unadulterated speed.
The last letter-writer should take Ritalin instead of meth. A good grade is not worth the risk of a long jail sentence.
So, although I'm fully on that stupid federal list thing that you have to sign every time you want to go get some actual Sudafed (which is, you know, legal amphetamines), I'm the first to say that it's seriously bad shit, and to stay away from it. Go get yourself a real espresso machine and OD on that. Or actually study in advance and do your term papers on time.
Just because you get good grades and live in the suburbs, you're not exempt from being a twat.
1. Mydriasis is right on all points and says it better than I could.
2. The cat stories, even the harmless cute ones, are all ick. I am dog person.
AEP- So you want your dick to be so big that it hurts women? What ever happened to being turned by a woman's enjoyment from a big dick & not their pain? Hearing a woman say "oh that's so big & feels so good" is much more sexy than the rapey-like sound of "oh stop...it hurts."
OMU- Try coffee, try OTC uppers, try Red Bull, or whatever... but don't use using meth for studies as an excuse. That's a BS excuse for doing a drug that, you should know as a college student, is seriously toxic. Here's another idea for when in the midst of finals... take a nap. It does more to refresh the brain than any stimulant.
So please, even if you're just thinking of expirementing, have an intelligent fallout plan. And don't even THINK of it if you don't have a strong, reliable support system to keep you in check.
As for drinking; you have to look at the context. I can sit down have some wine or a couple beers at home and just have a nice relaxing evening. Put me with my family (big partiers) and I end up having to police myself constantly otherwise I end up in a garage playing beer pong for two or three hours straight, getting coerced to knock back shots of tequila and yager with my aunts everytime I go inside; only to end up thrashed for a day or so after.
Thanks for the mental image!
Thanks! In regards to the cat stories, I'm with you. And I'm 100% a cat person. I can't believe these people don't close their doors when engaging in sex acts, that's pet ownership 101 in my world.
@134
"I've read the damn labels. I know what I'm talking about. Ritalin is meth. Adderall is meth."
Um NO.
You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.
"Meth" is methamphetamine.
Ritalin is methylphenidate. (More similar in structure to cocaine by the way, and it's not an amphetamine, the structure is fairly different)
Adderal is amphetamine (a racemic mixture of dex and levo amphetamine - NOT methamphetamine)
Methamphetamine IS prescribed in rare cases of ADHD (see one of my posts above)
They're all stimulants so they all have similar effects, I can understand why they maybe felt "all the same" to you, but they are not. I've done most of them myself and they absolutely don't feel the same for me. Also, people without ADHD will experience them differently from you (it's called the stimulant paradox effect if you're curious). That might explain why you can't understand how anyone would take them willingly.
If you hate ADHD medication you might want to try the other options available to you (assuming you haven't already).
Best of luck.
Peace.
In their little kitty brains, many cats think a closed door is a personal insult. They may or may not chose to go through it. But when you close the door, the only thing they can do is sit outside the door and cry at the tops of their lungs and dig up the carpet around the door.
Honestly, it's a much bigger mood killer than staring cat-eyes, or the occasional run into melee. They can be trained out of that. I've never been able to train my cats out of the wailing beside a closed door.
On top of that, "me time" at our house usually means that one of us is asleep, and do we really want to wake the other person?
Back early 70's had free access to such but fell asleep.
A few years back my kid was supposed to have ADHD prescription was for wellbutrin the doc knew damn well that a script for any speed like dex adderall methylphenidate whatever would just get sold on the black market and do the kid no good.
But -- what they call crystal meth or so -- yeah typically really crude chemically and targeted at dependency type personalities.
That's all I know about it
Eh, that isn't true for all cats. The cats I had growing up weren't super needy. Maybe that's because they had eachother? The whole jumping on top of my homework so I'd pet them thing wasn't like a constant occurance, for example.
Anyway, if you guys are all telling me that having a cat means never having sex in private again then I might reconsider getting one. I've been waiting for years, too!
From what I can tell, there are some number of people who seem to be hardwired to have trouble with addiction. If it's not heroin, it's alcohol. If you manage to keep them away from alcohol, they have trouble with cigarettes food or gambling or keeping a job or remain batshit crazy in a variety of ways that make them difficult to be around. I've seen the number placed on these people at around 3-5% of the population.
There also seem to be some number of people who have the opposite problem with drugs. They have trouble forming habits of any kind. They can't find pain killers that work even for the most understandable sort of pain as when injured or for surgery. Maybe the prescribed medicines work in one sense, but the patient doesn't like the high feeling. They'd rather not take cough medicine or muscle relaxants. For hayfever, they like antihistamines and skip the sudofed. The few times they tried marijuana or other recreational drugs, they didn't see what the big deal was about and never wanted to repeat the experiments.
Then there are the great number of people in the middle for whom environment plays a big part in their drug use. This is why I like Mydriasis's comment in 2 where she says "we should not being asking why the addiction, but why the pain." What's making people seek out the drugs?
It's a given that drugs will affect different people different ways. It's also a given that public policy should be dealt out as fairly as possible even though we know it will affect different people different ways. Some individuals would do better in an environment where they could never get their hands on drugs. Some individuals would be crazy anyway in that environment but probably better off if they couldn't get high. And some individuals, if they couldn't get their hands on drugs would get their hands on drugs anyhow.
What's a government to do when it comes to forming policy? Do their reasonable best to regulate. This creates a moral hazard in that some people, far from all, would, in that environment, start using when previously, they'd have stayed clean because of the lack of availability or social stigma. Drug laws are good for those folks, bad for the ones it turns into criminals.
Some people would do better if they couldn't get their hands on drugs, yes. But drug laws fail miserably at the goal of reducing the supply of drugs. Indeed, more cocaine comes out of Colombia today than ever before and now it's largely cut with deworming medication that causes white blood cell count to plummet. Surely you were a teenager once, right? In a lot of places, it's easier to get drugs than alcohol for teenagers.
So first, drug laws fail at stopping these vulnerable people from getting drugs. Well okay, what about fear of being arrested? Surely that must deter them. Nope. I mean think about it logically. Drugs can kill you. They can ruin your life, your relationships, your health, your appearance. If these people don't consider those risks to be deterrants, do you think the risk of maybe eventually going to jail will have an impact? It doesn't. Also, if you look at countries where drug laws are even MORE draconian than American drug laws, people are still arrested for drugs (if they're lucky enough to not just be executed without due process).
Finally, to your point about social stigma. Again, a lot (not all) of hardcore drug addicts were already socially stigmatized for race, socioeconomic status, mental health issues, etc etc etc. It's hardly a deterrant. Also, depending on what subculture you're in, drug use can be not only acceptable but celebrated. Drug culture is exceedingly accepting. You ever been to a rave? Everyone's welcome. If anything, drug use means LESS social stigma for a lot of drug addicts.
And besides, social stigma is seperate from law. Marijuana, heroin and ecstasy are all illegal, but the stigmas around them are different from eachother.
"This creates a moral hazard in that some people, far from all, would, in that environment, start using when previously, they'd have stayed clean because of the lack of availability or social stigma."
So I'd disagree with that, there is no lack of availability, and the social stigma you reference would still exist without drug laws IMHO.
There is maybe a very very small portion of the population (people who are inclined to become addicted but only abstain from drugs because they are afraid of going to jail. Frankly, this seems like a neurological oxymoron, and I've certainly never met such a person, but I suppose they might theoretically exist) that benefits from drug laws, but it hurts the vast majority of people - not just drug addicts - such as police officers, doctors, patients, soldiers fighting wars on terror, residents of countries that are wargrounds for the drug war, and anyone who pays taxes in countries that wage wars on drugs.
http://vimeo.com/12930745
Get yourself a Catwoman suit. Either the Halle Berry or Eartha Kitt look. Michelle Pfeiffer will do in a pinch. Next time the BF is feeling like a bit of self love, slip into in and climb on.
http://jezebel.com/5570815/
masturbating-while-driving-is-disturbingly-popular
If you and your wife can't manage to stroke two things at once, perhaps you two should quit holding yourselves up as examples and go back to remedial...
( I know this is science fiction, but I almost wish someone had told me (back when I was a teenager) "go ahead and experiment. The experience will do you some good, and the chances of your getting addicted are close to nil. You're just not wired that way." Similarly, I wish I could explain to doctors that I'm going to need careful pain management because their painkillers aren't going to work. It's fine when I'm campaigning for less drugs since I'd rather put up some reasonable amount of pain than feel that awful groggy, high feeling, but sometimes I need something that works, and they've got nothing.)
To continue rambling, it's not good regulation when people who need pain meds can't get them because the society is more focused on punishing addicts than serving the public good.
When will you be coming to WWU?
Another great column!
That said, because I have a life and interests outside of my cat, I've learned to multitask. I can study while petting the cat. I can talk on the phone while feeding the cat and changing the litter. I can watch tv while waving a cat toy around. I can even type comments on Savage Love while my cat tries to walk on my keyboard! I do the vast majority of this without even thinking about it because it has become second nature to me.
What I'm trying to say is that CAT's boyfriend probably didn't even notice what he was doing. And if/when he did, he probably shrugged it off as no biggie.
if she doesn't come at him all accusatory and shit, this could be an open door to a conversation they've been needing to have - except she just didn't know it.
if she doesn't come at him all accusatory and shit, this could be an open door to a conversation they've been needing to have - except she just didn't know it.
Never happened again (with a cat) but was sure a surprise then...
As for the drug thing, it's absolutely possible to be a casual user of hard drugs. It's also absolutely possible to be a straight-A student with clear skin and healthy teeth while hooked through the nose--as I was. Hell, Stephen King wrote most of his best-loved novels while high as fuck and drunk as a lord; his success in that area of his life didn't make him less of an addict.
(If you need a reason not to try meth, and the fear of bad skin and teeth doesn't do it for you, there's this: my old dealer once confided to me--and, oh, how I wish he hadn't--that he can't get a full hard-on unless he's high anymore. Whether he's trained his dick that there's no sexy-times without drugs, or it's an actual side-effect of the drugs, is a life without hard-ons really a risk you'd want to take?)
Living in a world with cat people, it's wierd. Cat people are losing the battle and becoming more like cats than cats are human. Do they do anything ? Get the paper, guard the house ? Nope... Do you all cat people let them do or go wherever they want ? Yes you do, because they sense your weakness.
Do you think that working on finding what is causing the pain after the drug addiction starts can work? If kicking off the habit is so difficult as many people suggest, what would the expected success rate be?
(In passing: I think I'm a lot like Crinoline, in that pain killers and sleeping pills don't seem to work easily on me; also, every time I tried pot, I didn't seem to work: the other people in the room started feeling the effects while all I felt was thirst (and sometimes hunger).)
The advertisements could be regulated like those of tobacco, and alcohol. More importantly they are taxed for federal revenue, and another source of revenue couldn't hurt.
Peace.
My cats were both bottle-fed orphans. As such, they really don't know that they are cats.
In my experience, cats have two ways of bonding with other creatures on a social level. They either think of you like a member of a lion's pride, or they pair-bond with you the way that some tigers pair-bond with their siblings. Most people only experience the first kind of relationship so they think cats aren't all that needy.
The boy pair-bonded with my husband, the girl pair-bonded with me. I joke that the boy cat loves and adores my husband beyond all rhyme reason and sanity, tolerates me, and actively hates the rest of the world and wishes for their deaths. The girl is pretty affectionate with everybody else, but not like she is with me.
As far as I'm concerned it's worth it because when I call my cat, she comes running, and when my husband goes to bed at night, his cat lays on the bed waiting so they can cuddle before going to sleep.
Now there are draw-backs to this, but you *can* train your cats with patience. The girl almost never runs to the sound of buzzing anymore, and they know that when we are gettin' it on, we *won't* pay attention to them, so they generally leave the room. But we don't close doors in our house, because we've discovered that it's just not worth it.
If you really don't want your cat to be all that needy, get two kittens at once. If the cat is inclined to pair-bond, it'll almost always bond with the other cat.
Why yes, I AM a crazy cat lady.
"if drugs are unregulated"
First off, I never advocated that. Legal =/= unregulated. Drugs are currently LESS regulated than alcohol, for example.
"wouldn't we have (via lovely capitalism) said drugs being pushed to people with enticing advertisements the same way junk food is?"
Perhaps. Depends on how capitalist the country is. But even bend-over-for-commerce America regulates cigarette advertising quite heavily. Alcohol ads too, I believe.
Besides, drugs sell themselves. The music/movie/videogame industry glamourizes drugs free of charge, and indeed, so does criminalization (American teenagers use marijuana at a higher rate than teenagers in the Netherlands).
"It seems some sort of restriction is in order."
Yep. But evidence doesn't suggest that criminalization serves this purpose.
"Do you think that working on finding what is causing the pain after the drug addiction starts can work? If kicking off the habit is so difficult as many people suggest, what would the expected success rate be?"
I do, yes.
But this is a very complicated question. On a social scale, we have a good idea of why the pain. Personally I prefer prevention.
Drug addiction is quite nuanced and recalcitrant. I won't bore the entire comments section with my long answer to this question (if you'd like the long version, feel free to email me) but the short answer is that the success rate depends on many many factors and I think it would vary by country, socioeconmic group, gender, etc etc etc. A big step is availability to treatment (where I grew up, kids got shipped off to fancy resort-style rehab - not exactly an option for gutter-dwelling junkies) and lessened stigma.
"(In passing: I think I'm a lot like Crinoline, in that pain killers and sleeping pills don't seem to work easily on me; also, every time I tried pot, I didn't seem to work: the other people in the room started feeling the effects while all I felt was thirst (and sometimes hunger).)"
Why people respond differently to drugs is pretty poorly understood still (genes that code for the enzymes that activate or break down drugs, the receptors that sense them, etc, often vary) which is a bummer because I think it's super interesting. My mother had to go on morphine (an opiate) once and hated it, my dad hated it too. My older brother LOVED opiates, more than any other drug he tried. I'm in the middle, I like the way they feel but I don't find them addictive. It's crazy how that works.
Are you a somewhat anxious person?
Or heck, ban ALL advertising. The global drug trade is worth hundreds of billions of dollars every year. I'm no economics expert but glancing at Wikipedia tells me that Coca Cola takes in like, one tenth of that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the drug industry isn't exactly hurting so I'm not sure those regulations matter?
I'm a total pinko though, so my first thought would be to have the government take it over.
@180
Thanks for the info! :)
Question - what does GGG mean in two of the letters above?
"Good, giving and game" - the qualities of a good girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/sex partner. Usually people use it to refer to being accommodating in the bedroom.
Sure it does. I know plenty of people who did a little acid, coke, or pot when they were teens back in the 60s and 70s when the consequences weren't as great as they are today. They weren't as likely to get caught, and if they did get caught, they weren't as likely to get life-ruining jail sentences. Today, these people avoid all illegal drugs because it's not worth risking their careers and lives with a drug record. If the drugs were available in a legal and regulated way, one where they knew quality and potency, they'd probably partake now and then as they do when they have a beer watching a ball game or a glass of wine with a nice dinner.
I know people now in their 40s, only about 10 years younger than I, who have never tried the drugs because of that combination of legal consequence, propaganda (called education), and unavailability (meaning that they'd have to find a dealer as opposed to going to the package store, something that has implications in itself).
Thus my original point-- Just as drugs affect us all differently from a DNA or chemical standpoint, the laws and stigma surrounding drugs affect us all differently. For some of us, criminalization is an effective deterrent. For others, not so much.
I had always figured he was noting that affection was taking place and he wasn't the subject of it.
I agree with you that laws affect everyone differently. My point wasn't that stigma wasn't a ever a deterrant it was
1. Law and stigma are not the same thing, they don't map perfectly. Things can be equally legal/illegal while being differently stigmatized. Use reflects this (compare heroin and marijuana).
2. For the people who become hardcore addicts, stigma typically isn't a deterrant because
a. They're already heavily stigmatized by society and have little to lose
b. They are often less stigmatized by drug culture than mainstream culture.
c. Their assesments of risk and reward are often deficient to begin with.
So to your final point, my suggestion is that the people who you're referring to (your friends) are not inclined to become hard core drug addicts (the fact that they dabbled with cocaine, for example - one of the more addictive drugs - and didn't run into trouble would support this) in any case.
Plus the people you know in their forties are probably an anomaly - there's no statistical evidence that drug use has declined at any point (that I know of) in response to drug laws. I certainly didn't see an absence of drug use among the young people I knew in highschool. If I made assumptions based on my own personal experience I'd think drug use is off the charts in teenagers. That's the thing about anecdotal evidence, it can be super misleading.
Anyway what I was going to finish with is, in order for prohibition to serve the purpose you're suggesting it does a few things are required
1. A significant group of people must be deterred by drug laws
2. A significant subgroup would not be deterred if there were no drug laws (so they are not deterred by the risks of OD, stroke, heart attack, psychosis or triggering of latent schizophrenic symptoms, seizures, losing the structural integrity of their face, losing a limb, losing a job, bad trips, miscarraige, liver damage, dental damage or death)*
I think that's a pretty vanishingly small group of people with some really weird priorities or they're uneducated.
3. This group is reasonably large, and a significant portion of them will hurt themselves with drugs above and beyond the damage they currently do with smoking/alcohol.
I don't think that's the case. Do you?
I mean, even if you do, that small benefit is (in my opinion) vastly vastly outweighed by the massive costs. But I'm curious.
*Though some of these risks would become smaller if drugs are legalized and regulated, they are still all risks inherent to the drugs themselves.
I don't think you really understood what I said?
Yes, some people care about the law, but the people who are inclined to become drug addicts typically do not.
Even if 1% of the population falls into that catagory (frankly, I think that estimate is high for the reasons I explained above) and your premise is right, you have to think about the benefits of legalization as well.
Addicts are less likely to get treatment in a prohibitionist regime. So even if more people experimented and became addicted after legalization, the net number of addicts is still likely to decline quite a bit due to increased treament (see Portugal) and recovery.
Plus also the fact that it's unethical to send people to jail for being drug addicts. It's truly sad that I need to point that out.
Your argument is very similar to that used to quash sex education. "By frankly discussing and acknowledging sex, we as a society are promoting children to engage in sex." Pragmatists can show that isn't the case in the real world, and, within those under statistical probability to have done so anyway, the negative effects of unwanted pregnancy and STDs are decreased.
Alcohol is a good example of a bad problem minimized by legalization. Some ninety years later we still feel the negative effects of when it was criminalized. It is a sad joke that "Reefer Madness" is still viewed as a seemingly realistic social commentary (though I will be very quick to note it is an extremely powerful one), particularly in light of the beneficial possibilities of the hemp plant and the societal damage caused by the exceedingly harsh penalties for it's use. I wonder how many people in this country can't point out knowing benign use by an acquaintance (of marijuana). That should be an important factor in our legal equation, yet in 2012 marijuana is still illegal and it's medical use is being denied. Shouldn't we go with the greatest benefit to our society?
Peace.
I've seen it ruin a lot of folks, and it gets on top of them very fast, before they realize it. It was pretty awful to watch.
I don't believe in the "war on drugs," and I don't really think most currently illegal drugs should be illegal. But that doesn't mean they're safe, or that people should treat them lightly.
If you're going to endanger yourself chemically to try and get "extra study time," you'd be better off with something like adderal (aka amphetamine/dexamphetamine, rather than methamphetamine, which is the bad stuff) or modafinil (sold as Provigil in the US). You're better off not treating your brain that way at all, in my opinion, but if you're gonna do it, explore stuff that's not as bad for you, and not as addictive, and that you can get legally.
Amphetamine is nearly as addictive as meth. Especially when you factor in the fact that most people who take amphetamines grind them up and snort them. Though I'd agree with you it's safer, unfortunately there's a massive problem with students using ADHD medication as preformance enhancement and thinking it's okay and safe and world's apart from what this young lady is doing. It's not.
*lights the fuse, throws bomb through door*
You know amphetamines are recognized memory enhancement drugs, right...
Peace.
And?
Not exactly a bombshell. :p
Logically, meth would be a BETTER memory enhancer.
Besides, I'm not really down with people using drugs as preformance enhancement. It's a complicated issue, but... yeah I'm not exactly comfortable with it. Adderal/ritalin/etc are there for people like figher pilots who need their alertness and people with a legit neurological disorder (ADHD) to subdue their symptoms and allow their intelligence and aptitude come through.
But some halfwit can take them and spend 24/7 drilling themselves and memorizing textbooks and get a better grade than someone who actually deserves it (ie, understands the material). In a competitive environment like mine, you bet it bothers me.
I seriously doubt that amphetamines help non-learning disabled students enough to warrant them being termed an unfair advantage. But I hope you don't begrudge those of us that truly do need such measures to perform at our best. I suspect that those persons that do best had the best capabilities prior to going sleep deprived, even if they didn't spend all their time studying before the crunch.
As far as "fighting" someone with a photographic memory, good luck. My father's perfect recall was incredibly frustrating, mainly because I only got a portion of it. In my case the aggravating "fight" was with someone with perfect pitch, and while my ability is superior to most, I knew I couldn't be in the first chair with us both putting in the same effort.
As someone diagnosed as an adult having ADD/ADHD, I hope your umbrage isn't with sudents that receive accommodations. Even if we're doing well without, it isn't as well as we could do, and I'm sure that borderline cases still go undiagnosed and self medicated.
As always, when dealing with the stresses of studies, break a leg!
Peace, and dreams that come from having sleep.
Wow, my message really across wrong!
"[these drugs are for] people with a legit neurological disorder (ADHD) to subdue their symptoms and allow their intelligence and aptitude come through."
That is what I said they are made for, intended for, and should be used for. That's not the same as preformance enhancement. I think people who don't need these drugs using them is unfair to the people who DO need them.
If it seems that I begrudge people who receive accomodations, I'm suprised to hear it. Do I seem neurotypical to you?
"I seriously doubt that amphetamines help non-learning disabled students enough to warrant them being termed an unfair advantage."
I think you may be wrong. Avid memorization can mask a lack of aptitude and understanding. Someone who does't have the capacity to get an A by understanding a concept can drill and memorize so they can get that A anyway. Believe me, a disturbing number of students operate this way. This memorization can be aided by abusing a drug intended for someone who really needs it. That bothers me.
But going any deeper into answering your question would get more personal than I'm comfortable describing here.
"You know amphetamines are recognized memory enhancement drugs, right..."
So you'll remember how to put your car back together again after being up all night taking it apart. You've got to concentrate on something worthwhile to make that memory useful.
Sorry.
The differences between the 1980s era and today may well mean that "everyone who needs it, gets it". I apologize, I went through a time when (in retrospect of the period when the diagnosis of ADD was being formulated) "some people" had real enhancement due to using speed-ish things. I also live in a community that has some people that argue more resources should be directed to the top performers and not directed to those that could do better with assistance.
As far as rote memorization, you have the practical disciplines like the sciences and math (and engineering) that usually require application of understanding principles above and beyond memorization, and in the rest you need to write papers to show competency. Somehow I have the feeling that given the opportunity, you'll kick ass when it comes time.
When I came into the real world, my work in a professor's lab (to get a recommendation) counted far more than simple grades (or at least it was true in my case looking for a bench position).
Again, I'm sorry if I upset you.
Peace.
Not at all, I just don't want to seem like I think that people with legitimate needs shouldn't be allowed to use medication.
And though math/science fields do usually need understanding/application, but a lot can be masked by memorization.
By metaphor, I could understand how to do math, or I could buy a book that has all the equations most likely to show up on an exam and memorize all of them including the answers. There are students that operate that way. They aren't intellectually gifted, just very well trained students that have been forced to preform academically their whole lives.
Anyway, I'm not generally threatened by those types, I guess this letter coming around exam season set me off a little.
Thanks for the kind words!