Even Han Solo gets Boarded.
Even Han Solo gets Boarded.
hurricane you're looking at the symptoms rather than the causes.
if most (and i stress most, there are some evil drugs that will conquer you) drugs were as readily and cheaply available to the average user as alcohol and cigarettes, you wouldnt see social problems of a much bigger significance than those already existing WITH alcohol and cigarettes. people would still be unruly and hard to govern in a civil-sense, sure. i think the underground, black-markets that exist because of illegality bring about 90% of the social problems and ills concerned with drug-use, though. refer to my earlier quote: what harm the drugs have done, the war on drugs has done equally. if drugs werent prohibitively expensive because of their illegal status, or if they didn't have to be cut with dangerous side-chemicals/substances, or if one didn't have to ingratiate oneself with a less-than-respectable underworld, many of the social problems wouldn't exist.
i can't condone it, though. cynically i see the advantages that the 'establishment' and authorities are reaping from a placated and law-abiding majority. pragmatically, perhaps, i see that keeping people locked away from using drugs is probably a good thing. they're not for everyone, and psychological problems run riot when you unleash holy chemical hell on your brain. our society at the moment produces far too many people suffering from anxieties, nervosies, insecurities and whatnot to just freely allow them to indulge in mind-altering chemicals with no common sense of responsibility whatsoever. we'd need a much freer, happier and healthier - in the general sense - society before we could ever open the mental, psychological and spiritual pandoras box that is drugs.
if most (and i stress most, there are some evil drugs that will conquer you) drugs were as readily and cheaply available to the average user as alcohol and cigarettes, you wouldnt see social problems of a much bigger significance than those already existing WITH alcohol and cigarettes. people would still be unruly and hard to govern in a civil-sense, sure. i think the underground, black-markets that exist because of illegality bring about 90% of the social problems and ills concerned with drug-use, though. refer to my earlier quote: what harm the drugs have done, the war on drugs has done equally. if drugs werent prohibitively expensive because of their illegal status, or if they didn't have to be cut with dangerous side-chemicals/substances, or if one didn't have to ingratiate oneself with a less-than-respectable underworld, many of the social problems wouldn't exist.
i can't condone it, though. cynically i see the advantages that the 'establishment' and authorities are reaping from a placated and law-abiding majority. pragmatically, perhaps, i see that keeping people locked away from using drugs is probably a good thing. they're not for everyone, and psychological problems run riot when you unleash holy chemical hell on your brain. our society at the moment produces far too many people suffering from anxieties, nervosies, insecurities and whatnot to just freely allow them to indulge in mind-altering chemicals with no common sense of responsibility whatsoever. we'd need a much freer, happier and healthier - in the general sense - society before we could ever open the mental, psychological and spiritual pandoras box that is drugs.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
My brother went backpacking with some mates through South America a few years ago, he got ripped off for getting pretty close to pure coke @ $14 a G, but I guess the english backpackers he hung around with were probably ripping him off.eleven bravo wrote:
dude, Ive heard of 5 dollar grams in peru/columbia/bolivia
Coke is stupidly expensive here in Australia. About $300-350 per GRAM. Hence I think I've tried it once, mixed in with some mdma and speed at some dealer's 42nd bday party (he was walking around with a silver tray with lines, gave me the first one). I guess getting it to Australia is probably stupidly expensive, hence the price hike.
I used to be completely against drug usage, and still am to a certain extent, but my repulsion to their use has softened dramatically in the past year. I realize that was primarily because the only people who really used them (alcohol/weed) in high school were kind of losers. I consequently associated drugs with these people (who were, obviously, the sort of immature low-class people you'd never associate with), and got the subsequent notion that drugs were only for them. College opened my eyes a bit, because I saw kids just as intelligent and successful as me getting ridiculously drunk/toking it up regularly. It made me realize exactly what you now say - losers and the uneducated make drug use look like a poor choice because they let it dictate their lives, whereas more intelligent people can use them with a modicum of responsibility.Uzique wrote:
cocaine has been loaded with social signifiers in my own experience. but then again there is cocaine as a party-drug and cocaine as a social-indicator and they are two very different things in two very different scenarios.
nuk, many people in the day were totally dependent on opiates, true. in fact, it is hard to discern between the high-scribblings and sober calculations of great poets such as samuel taylor coleridge, who was effectively hooked on the stuff. the thing is, back then it didn't have the same grave and ominous associations- society didn't condemn it, so mid-upper class sensibilities took a politer stance on 'habitual' use. in fact, there's an argument (that i follow in a way, slightly) that says all drugs lift us out of the ennui that is modern-life. that may sound grandiose - it's baudelaire's thinking, originally - but it does carry some weight. whether it's escapism or just a relief from the stresses, pressures and anxieties that our modern lifestyle breeds into us, drugs still have a very contemporary use. even ravers blowing off steam apparently-senselessly on weekends perhaps have some tenuous psychological reason for doing so. these big, mass society-wide 'cultures' and 'phases' don't spring out of nowhere, you know.
i have commented before and mention again how amusingly arbitrary i find many people's moral compass to be - personally and on a wider social level. the drugs that are declared 'fine' and fit for every day casual consumption and those that are banned and considered criminal are not objectively standardized in any way, at all. not when considering medical-health risks, psychological change, personal inhibition or anything. there are some glaring hypocrisies (which cause resultant social problems of their own, clearly) in the widespread use and binging of alcohol and smoking. i daresay there would be less violence and social problems in western countries resulting from alcoholic rowdiness and violence if people were high on weed and cocaine as opposed to wired on alcohol and energy-drink mixers. but i digress. my point is that attitudes to drugs shift and we are a very small and insignificant part of the bigger puzzle. at the moment the agendas and mandates of those in power decree that drugs are bad and of no benefit to human well-being (or rather, cynically, no benefit to their continuance of power and of our productivity)- hence they are banned.
and that's that, really. no amount of jaded former-user talk is going to change that.
With that said, is the portrayal of heroin usage in Requiem for a Dream inaccurate? That was partially why I thought heroin was so singularly destructive.
hahaha, no.
that's like asking if world war 2 can be aptly summarized by Saving Private Ryan
opiate use has a long long history. modern-day, urban heroin addicts are the public scapegoat for a populist fear of the unknown. that said, it is an insidious drug that really clutches you. opiates interact with the brain receptors in a way quite unlike any other drug - they almost change the brain chemistry, effectively, turning certain receptors into non-stop opiate cravers. personally i wouldn't mess with it but that doesn't mean idealistically i agree with everyone having that choice prohibited.
it also surprises me that someone who self-congratulates themselves as being "successful" hasn't ever read a book or mused over a philosophy by a well-known drug user. many of the greatest intellectual insights and creative endeavours have either been predicated upon or catalysed by drug-use. funny, that. you lumped drug-use into a naive, socially inept view of high-school potheads, whilst apparently on the path to being 'successful' yourself. never read any literature from the fin-de-siecle? not a fan of Poe? don't read much renaissance and onwards philosophy/political thinking? you sound incredibly sheltered when it comes to so-called 'intelligence'.
that's like asking if world war 2 can be aptly summarized by Saving Private Ryan
opiate use has a long long history. modern-day, urban heroin addicts are the public scapegoat for a populist fear of the unknown. that said, it is an insidious drug that really clutches you. opiates interact with the brain receptors in a way quite unlike any other drug - they almost change the brain chemistry, effectively, turning certain receptors into non-stop opiate cravers. personally i wouldn't mess with it but that doesn't mean idealistically i agree with everyone having that choice prohibited.
it also surprises me that someone who self-congratulates themselves as being "successful" hasn't ever read a book or mused over a philosophy by a well-known drug user. many of the greatest intellectual insights and creative endeavours have either been predicated upon or catalysed by drug-use. funny, that. you lumped drug-use into a naive, socially inept view of high-school potheads, whilst apparently on the path to being 'successful' yourself. never read any literature from the fin-de-siecle? not a fan of Poe? don't read much renaissance and onwards philosophy/political thinking? you sound incredibly sheltered when it comes to so-called 'intelligence'.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-06-09 15:54:31)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
There have been studies that show there are a relatively decent number of people who use heroin who only do so recreationally, maybe once a weekend/month. These people tend to be white collar workers, often quite successful, and have used heroin in this way for years with no apparent addiction or otherwise detrimental effect to their lives.
Like with gambling, alcohol etc. any form of addiction can be destructive. I guess with heroin the part that makes it so is the addiction and subsequent want to just be smacked out the whole time as a result. I can have a few beers on the weekend or a glass of wine after work, and live my life and it's other aspects very well. I can also go to a festival and take some mdma and acid and lose my shit for a night, take a day or so to recover and then get back on with things with only a temporary side effect and maybe do this again in 6 months or so later.
I haven't known a lot of people who have tried heroin and even less whom have been junkies but the whole concept of opiates has never appealed to me.
Requiem for a Dream is pretty much completely over the top in most cases, but that's not saying it can't occur, or that it hasn't previously.
Like with gambling, alcohol etc. any form of addiction can be destructive. I guess with heroin the part that makes it so is the addiction and subsequent want to just be smacked out the whole time as a result. I can have a few beers on the weekend or a glass of wine after work, and live my life and it's other aspects very well. I can also go to a festival and take some mdma and acid and lose my shit for a night, take a day or so to recover and then get back on with things with only a temporary side effect and maybe do this again in 6 months or so later.
I haven't known a lot of people who have tried heroin and even less whom have been junkies but the whole concept of opiates has never appealed to me.
Requiem for a Dream is pretty much completely over the top in most cases, but that's not saying it can't occur, or that it hasn't previously.
I see.Uzique wrote:
hahaha, no.
that's like asking if world war 2 can be aptly summarized by Saving Private Ryan
opiate use has a long long history. modern-day, urban heroin addicts are the public scapegoat for a populist fear of the unknown. that said, it is an insidious drug that really clutches you. opiates interact with the brain receptors in a way quite unlike any other drug - they almost change the brain chemistry, effectively, turning certain receptors into non-stop opiate cravers. personally i wouldn't mess with it but that doesn't mean idealistically i agree with everyone having that choice prohibited.
I meant successful in the barest sense of the term - that is, getting into a good university and not failing high school. I guess I never really considered the enhanced creativity and the like resulting from drug use, perhaps because the work that resulted wasn't necessarily something I deemed enjoyable. I did read a bunch of the above, but I really didn't like much of it. Poe was a master at writing somber poetry, sure, and Hemingway was supposedly brilliant, but I found the former unappealing due to the darkness, and the latter's minimalistic writing nearly unreadable. I wasn't aware renaissance/enlightenment philosophers indulged in drugs while composing their works. I never claimed to be exceedingly well read; as it were, I differentiate because natural intelligence (mental capabilities) and level of education. My 'intelligence' in high school was always at a high level, while my familiarity and knowledge of the literary/philosophical world never was.it also surprises me that someone who self-congratulates themselves as being "successful" hasn't ever read a book or mused over a philosophy by a well-known drug user. many of the greatest intellectual insights and creative endeavours have either been predicated upon or catalysed by drug-use. funny, that. you lumped drug-use into a naive, socially inept view of high-school potheads, whilst apparently on the path to being 'successful' yourself. never read any literature from the fin-de-siecle? not a fan of Poe? don't read much renaissance and onwards philosophy/political thinking? you sound incredibly sheltered when it comes to so-called 'intelligence'.
In essence, yeah I was kind of sheltered, but college has changed that.
Tu Stultus Es
raoul duke!
and yes nuk, i bet you'd like to think that being in college has 'changed' at all. dunno wtf you're talking about with hemingway.
and yes nuk, i bet you'd like to think that being in college has 'changed' at all. dunno wtf you're talking about with hemingway.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
http://www.hulu.com/watch/149646/saturd … -great-dayburnzz wrote:
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/6280 … ggumst.jpgMekstizzle wrote:
what the hell is coke supposed to even do to you anyway
What are you talking about? How has college changed? Regarding Hemingway, I found The Sun Also Rises a miserable read in content, message, and 'artistic' elements.Uzique wrote:
raoul duke!
and yes nuk, i bet you'd like to think that being in college has 'changed' at all. dunno wtf you're talking about with hemingway.
well you're a fucking idiot, stick to pretending to know shit instead of professing as if you do
and you know what im talking about. every first year thinks they've blossomed into the next great intellectual in their first year of college. oh the mind-opening revelation! ... not.
and you know what im talking about. every first year thinks they've blossomed into the next great intellectual in their first year of college. oh the mind-opening revelation! ... not.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Drugs are devoid of class, wealth and social standing.
I wasn't sure because it seemed as if you omitted a word. Anyways, nice try. I just said it opened my eyes, not that I've blossomed into the world's next great intellectual. You're rather persistent in your efforts to describe me like that - is there a reason for that?
Because I didn't like Hemingway? Please, try again.well you're a fucking idiot, stick to pretending to know shit instead of professing as if you do
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-10 04:32:18)
that's wrong as well. certain drugs have always had attached stereotypes, subcultures and social signifiers.jord wrote:
Drugs are devoid of class, wealth and social standing.
im not sure what sort of idealistic imagined world you are living in where certain actions and substances exist with no material ties to the outside world.
nuk i didn't tell you to ssh because you don't like hemingway, don't be stupid. opinion is opinion. saying that his stuff is devoid of artistic talent and proper content is utterly stupid. is there a reason for it? don't pretend to be obtuse or stupid. the way you type and the manner in which you interject into discussions reeks of self-sure know-it-all-ness. you're almost as bad as FM. im pretty sure most people that read your posts get the same impression.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-06-10 04:40:13)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
oh, i thought that would fall under the realm of opinion too. isn't literature mostly subjective?Uzique wrote:
that's wrong as well. certain drugs have always had attached stereotypes, subcultures and social signifiers.jord wrote:
Drugs are devoid of class, wealth and social standing.
im not sure what sort of idealistic imagined world you are living in where certain actions and substances exist with no material ties to the outside world.
nuk i didn't tell you to ssh because you don't like hemingway, don't be stupid. opinion is opinion. saying that his stuff is devoid of artistic talent and proper content is utterly stupid.
I mean, I read it in 11th grade and absolutely hated it. Maybe I'd appreciate it more now. As noted, I didn't think I was commenting objectively on the quality of the work, but rather articulating my personal reaction to it.is there a reason for it? don't pretend to be obtuse or stupid. the way you type and the manner in which you interject into discussions reeks of self-sure know-it-all-ness. you're almost as bad as FM. im pretty sure most people that read your posts get the same impression.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-10 04:43:40)
I wasn't talking about a specific drug, just addressing nuk's point that drugs were for lower class "losers". Class, wealth and social status stop certain undesirables from sampling say, Cocaine. Drugs on the whole though, well anyone can use them. Poor, rich, upstanding community man, homeless waster, unfit fatass, 8 Gold medal winning Olympic swimmer. As a whole there is no group of people that don't use a drug.Uzique wrote:
that's wrong as well. certain drugs have always had attached stereotypes, subcultures and social signifiers.jord wrote:
Drugs are devoid of class, wealth and social standing.
im not sure what sort of idealistic imagined world you are living in where certain actions and substances exist with no material ties to the outside world.
nuk i didn't tell you to ssh because you don't like hemingway, don't be stupid. opinion is opinion. saying that his stuff is devoid of artistic talent and proper content is utterly stupid.
yeah, but every type of drug within a given social context will have a signified meaning and connotation.
we as a species define our existence as much through our actions and habits of consumption as we do via innate personality.
the wealth-gap may not necessarily exist anymore, but people will still be more likely to be exposed to 'x' drug in 'y' social background.
we as a species define our existence as much through our actions and habits of consumption as we do via innate personality.
the wealth-gap may not necessarily exist anymore, but people will still be more likely to be exposed to 'x' drug in 'y' social background.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Of course and I agree and it's all pretty obvious and simple stuff to anyone who has been around drugs. Pointing out to Nuk that to claim drugs are for high school losers is greatly inaccurate and ignorant.
As I noted, that was a conception I had in high school that was quickly erased once I got to college.
Miles Davis took heroin for years, apparently, and he was to jazz what Cobain was to grunge, or what Van Gogh was to post-impressionist art.
Not condoning it or recommending it, but there are brilliant, brilliant people who take what a lot of people who also have nothing going for their lives whatsoever take too. Like most things, it's really up to the person, they're responsible for their life and those old chestnuts.
Not condoning it or recommending it, but there are brilliant, brilliant people who take what a lot of people who also have nothing going for their lives whatsoever take too. Like most things, it's really up to the person, they're responsible for their life and those old chestnuts.