here we go again.Macbeth wrote:
lol you were in the military. Another guy who wants small government but was part of the national job program.
i don't understand what you are saying then. your post makes no sense. "wow you'd really say that"? when he works in a mental home? "he should know how to classify and administer drugs"? lol what? all he said was that many class a controlled substances are safer than legal drugs. completely true. LSD is a class a drug almost worldwide because of legislation that was pushed through decades ago. LSD is less toxic and less harmful to your body than paracetamol. that's just a pharma fact. what would his mental home work have to do with that? because he worked in the health system he should consider the legal drug classifications as ultimate, or something? your post makes literally no sense. there is no extractable content. drug classifications have nothing to do with a medical or mental-health reality. nil. the law is not a scientifically rational system.Spearhead wrote:
At a mental home he would be qualified to know how to classify and administer drugs. I wasnt saying everyone there was a drug addict. ChristUzique The Lesser wrote:
how many people's lives do you know that have been ruined by taking MDMA at parties or clubs? and how many people's lives are ruined by alcohol? it is not a crazy statement. i also resent the fact you likened his previous employment at a mental home to "drug use". drug abuse is not the cause of much mental illness. a surface manifestation and symptom of an underlying condition/emotional problem, perhaps. very seldom can you trace the etiology of a mental illness to 'drug abuse'. even the infamous weed/LSD causing schizophrenia cases are generally put down to theories of a recessive gene/latent family history.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-07 00:14:28)
he's not wrong. the military-industrial complex always puts lazy and directionless people to work in america.Cybargs wrote:
here we go again.Macbeth wrote:
lol you were in the military. Another guy who wants small government but was part of the national job program.
I know he's not but it's just every single post he just has to harp on about military welfare this, veterans steal jobs that.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
he's not wrong. the military-industrial complex always puts lazy and directionless people to work in america.Cybargs wrote:
here we go again.Macbeth wrote:
lol you were in the military. Another guy who wants small government but was part of the national job program.
Considering the huge cost of tertiary education in the USA... Military is a pretty good option to get paid while learning a trade.
Thats all great, and wishful thinking, however the situation now is that possession of illegal drugs is a crime, and whining about having possible future difficulties in your career because you've taken the conscious end educated decision to commit a crime is retarded.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i wasn't "lucky not to be caught", mostly because my consumption was within a private residence. still technically illegal, yes, but it only took one exceptional incident/boiling over in a domestic situation for my 'illegal' drug use to (incidentally) come to the attention of the authorities. and what harm were me and my friends ever doing? none. does it imprecate our moral character or rectitude as human beings? no, of course not. most of my friends now work in very respectable jobs or are pursuing postgraduate education in elite pathways. hardly a bunch of incorrigible drug-taking vagabonds. i take a pretty liberal approach when it comes to drug consumption. oh, and not to mention the fact there is no way that someone from a good background/of clean standing will "go down" for first-time possession of a small quantity of anything. nil. nada. you might want to check the law.Dilbert_X wrote:
As for you, you didn't exactly make a one-off 'mistake', you were well into illegal drugs for a long period and were lucky not to be caught with a class A substance and go down for a year or two. You've no right to be butthurt that there could be ongoing consequences.
and, frankly, the tides of public opinion and policymaking are swiftly changing when it comes to legislating against what people choose to put in their bodies. drugs are being legalized; extant drug policy is coming under criticism from all sides of the political spectrum - from social lefties/progressive and from fiscal conservatives. so yeah. i don't think it's of any especial interest to an employer that i enjoy(ed) taking drugs and experimenting with my mind. me and all of my friends who were into that scene are now eminently qualified and eminently well-prepared to do 'respectable' jobs. one of my close friends who was more into the drugs-scene more than anyone, a king's school canterbury boy, went on from our clique to do a public policy ma at the LSE. is he socially destitute? think he's going to struggle to get a high-flying job? think he... deserves to suffer? i think this is stupid thinking. 1970's christian housewife style concern. nagging prigs.
I don't care particularly what people do to themselves as long as it doesn't affect me or anyone else.
But in an employment situation having people on the team who are ready to break the rules and procedures on a whim, because they think they're 'unfair', or if they don't think the rules should apply to them for some reason, is not what most companies are looking for and for many reasons, such as liability, cannot allow.
I don't see why its unreasonable for a company to have basic knowledge of who they're hiring and their proclivity to break rules and laws.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I know a reasonable number of people who have fried their heads on drugs, none with alcohol.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
how many people's lives do you know that have been ruined by taking MDMA at parties or clubs? and how many people's lives are ruined by alcohol? it is not a crazy statement. i also resent the fact you likened his previous employment at a mental home to "drug use". drug abuse is not the cause of much mental illness. a surface manifestation and symptom of an underlying condition/emotional problem, perhaps. very seldom can you trace the etiology of a mental illness to 'drug abuse'. even the infamous weed/LSD causing schizophrenia cases are generally put down to theories of a recessive gene/latent family history.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i think you are being dishonest. medical records would indicate that society has a far bigger problem (in terms of numbers and resources committed) with alcohol-related problems than drug-related problems. people always like to talk about "fried heads" and "people going psycho" on drugs, but for every schizoid weed-smoker meltdown or LSD person-who-never-comes-back, there are 50 homeless alcoholics, or 100 domestic situations/families ruined by drunken and abusive father-figures, etc. alcohol has a far more pervasive and negative effect across all strands of society.Dilbert_X wrote:
I know a reasonable number of people who have fried their heads on drugs, none with alcohol.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
how many people's lives do you know that have been ruined by taking MDMA at parties or clubs? and how many people's lives are ruined by alcohol? it is not a crazy statement. i also resent the fact you likened his previous employment at a mental home to "drug use". drug abuse is not the cause of much mental illness. a surface manifestation and symptom of an underlying condition/emotional problem, perhaps. very seldom can you trace the etiology of a mental illness to 'drug abuse'. even the infamous weed/LSD causing schizophrenia cases are generally put down to theories of a recessive gene/latent family history.
i find it frankly unbelievable that you work in a professional environment and have never seen anyone abusing alcohol, or don't know anyone in your adult life who has a drinking problem/over-consumption/over-reliance habit. my group by all accounts were probably the heaviest and 'craziest' bunch of people on the university campus in our time - it was a small place, gossip traveled like wildfire - and all of us graduated top of our respective classes and are now way ahead of the bell curve in just about every single way. i just don't buy this 'drugs ruin lives' thing, all because "they're illegal" so they're 'worse'.
alcohol is pharmacologically more poisonous, chemically more addictive/dependent, and brings out a host of behaviours and effects that all lean easily towards depressive-negative symptoms, violence, aggression, lack of inhibition, etc. but you'll continually make out that drugs like MDMA or pot are the 'greater evil'. the only drugs that are medically, scientifically 'worse' than alcohol are cocaine and heroin. i honestly don't believe you've had that big of a problem in your life with crack cocaine or heroin addicts. they are a tiny minority in white-western societies.
let's break this down, and make it a little more than 'i've taken drugs and here's my anecdote' vs. 'i've never taken drugs, you are scum, here's my anecdote':
now let's look at this mental health category. people being "fried" because of drugs.
source: 'drugs in australia 2010: alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs', australian institute of health and welfare (canberra: 2010)
www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset. … 7420455
hmm, startling cost to society there by these illegal drugs and their meltdowns. so the government and employers both lose a lot more money in costs/losses to alcohol and tobacco than they do to drugs. i guess it's a really high priority for an employer to know if their job applicant takes MDMA once every 3 months! let's look at the health stats:In 2004–05, the consumption of alcohol was estimated to cost Australian society $15.3 billion (Collins & Lapsley 2008a). These costs included both tangible costs (such as for healthcare, road accidents and crime) and intangible costs, including for pain and suffering. The majority of social costs for alcohol (71%) were tangible costs (Collins & Lapsley 2008a). Businesses bore 50% of tangible costs and governments 26%, with individuals making up the balance. Recent research has suggested that when additional social costs to individuals around the drinker (rather than to the drinker themselves) are factored into the analysis, the financial burden of alcohol use in Australia is higher (Laslett et al. 2010).
In 2004–05, tobacco smoking was estimated to cost Australian society $31.5 billion in tangible costs (such as for healthcare, fires and lost productivity) and intangible costs of pain and suffering (Collins & Lapsley 2008b). The majority (62%) were intangible social costs. Of the tangible costs, the government sector bore 8%, while households and businesses bore 50% and 42%, respectively.
In 2004–05, it was estimated that illicit drug use cost Australian society $8.2 billion. Most of these costs (84%) were the tangible costs associated with crime, lost productivity and healthcare (Collins & Lapsley 2008b). In 2008–09, Australian governments also spent $83.9 million on the prevention of hazardous and harmful drug use associated with illicit drugs (AIHW 2011c). A further $114.5 million was spent on prevention related to ‘mixed’ drugs (programs that targeted more than one drug type). These funds were spent on prevention activities such as information campaigns and education programs.
tobacco again way out ahead. alcohol manages to draw about even with illicit drug use in terms of direct health problems, recouping 4,692 'saved lives' in 2003 through the putative 'health benefits' of (responsible) alcohol consumption, for e.g. stroke, ischemic heart disease in elderly people. alcohol still claims far more 'disability-adjusted-life-years' from society, however, in terms of productivity and misery. alcohol is still also a much bigger problem demographically for young- and working-age- people - the health benefits only recouping the losses for the elderly.There were 15,512 deaths attributable to tobacco in Australia in 2003 (Begg et al. 2007). The overall burden of disease in Australia from smoking decreased from 10% of the total burden in 1996 to 8% in 2003 (Begg et al. 2007); however, it remained the largest single risk factor contributing to disease and death.
In 2003, the most recent year for which data are available, an estimated 2% of the total burden of disease in Australia was attributable to excessive alcohol consumption, with a large proportion of this burden falling on males under the age of 45 years. However, alcohol was also estimated to prevent 1% of the total burden of disease (Begg et al. 2007), mainly through its protective effect for heart disease in older populations. The net impact of alcohol across the whole population was almost 1,100 deaths and over 61,000 DALYs (disability-adjusted-life-years)
The health impact of illicit drug use has been estimated in a study that looks at the sources of disease burden in Australia. The last study of this kind found that illicit drug use was responsible for 2% of the total burden of disease in Australia in 2003 (Begg et al. 2007). There were 1,705 deaths in 2003 and almost 51,500 disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYS or lost years of healthy life) attributable to illicit drug use.
now let's look at this mental health category. people being "fried" because of drugs.
looks like alcohol loses, again, by quite a margin. so it seems you live in a different reality to the rest of us. your "i know a few people who have lost their heads to drugs, none on alcohol" translates to 8% of people in a lifetime suffer a drug-related mental health problem, and 23% with alcohol. hmm. that's okay, though. rational and intelligent science types who regard the law as an immutable authority often suffer cognitive dissonance when it comes to the empirical facts.Mental health’ in this section includes both mental disorders, as defined by the ABS’s Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, and self-reported psychological wellbeing. The 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing gathered information about drug use disorders. The alcohol-related disorders captured were ‘harmful use’ (the pattern of use responsible for, or substantially contributing to, physical or psychological harm) and ‘alcohol dependence’(a maladaptive pattern of use in which alcohol takes on a much higher priority for a person than other behaviours that once had greater value) (ABS 2007).
The survey found that around 4% of Australians aged 16–85 years had experienced harmful alcohol use or were dependent on alcohol in the year before the survey. Around 23% of 16–85 year olds had experienced one of those disorders in their lifetime. The 2010 NDSHS also asked people about their psychological wellbeing. It found that people drinking at risky levels for lifetime harm or at levels that put them at risk of harm from a single occasion of drinking were more likely to report moderate to very high levels of psychological distress than low-risk drinkers and abstainers.
Some patterns of drug use and associated harms have a detrimental effect on mental health and wellbeing. Around 8% of people in Australia aged 16–85 years have had a drug use disorder (including harmful use/abuse and/or dependence) in their lifetime (ABS 2007). In 2007, about one in seventy people (1.4%) had a drug use disorder in the last 12 months.
source: 'drugs in australia 2010: alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs', australian institute of health and welfare (canberra: 2010)
www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset. … 7420455
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-07 02:08:52)
Aussies are terrible when it comes to alcohol. no sense of self control whatsoever. Even "high end" bar with drinks costing around 20 dollars
The 24 incidents at the central Sydney bar and restaurant in George Street was a slight rise from 23 in the previous audit period, according to a list published by the NSW government.
Ivy is now the only venue on the government's violent venues list subject to level-one licensing restrictions, which includes venues with more than 19 violent incidents in a year.
This means it must ban serving shots, doubles and glass containers after midnight and impose a 2am lockout, meaning customers who leave may not re-enter and new customers may not be admitted.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/ivy-tops-list … z2VWLYkDa9
i guess it makes sense dilbert doesn't see any of the alcohol problems, or know anyone that has suffered the endemically common alcohol problems in australia (a quarter of the adult population with an alcohol-related mental-health issue in their lifetime, wow). dilbert doesn't go out. it all makes sense. i guess when you don't see the saturday night bar-strip or beach resorts, the phantom and oft-preached 'nasties' of drugs is going to haunt you more.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-07 02:31:30)
It's even a high school graduating "tradition" to go get very drunk with your friends. Fuck it's even a marketable program now!Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i guess it makes sense dilbert doesn't see any of the alcohol problems, or know anyone that has suffered the endemically common alcohol problems in australia (a quarter of the adult population with an alcohol-related mental-health issue in their lifetime, wow). dilbert doesn't go out. it all makes sense. i guess when you don't see the saturday night bar-strip or beach resorts, the phantom and oft-preached 'nasties' of drugs is going to haunt you more.
http://www.schoolies.com/gold-coast/accommodation
and i 100% agree with the behavioural/social rite stuff. go to a night-venue or a club and the people causing trouble are the drunks. the macho dudes who pound too many beers. the dramatic girls who get over-emotional and cat-fight, or start arguments. alcohol creates far more negative behaviour than drug use. a person on MDMA is never going to lose their self-control. they are never going to become aggressive, take a 'nasty turn', be loud and shout abuse. just sociable and very talkative. perhaps wanting a hug. it's anecdotal again, but yeah: when i was locked up, 2 dudes who had been arrested for drunkenly brawling in the streets were locked up on my corridor. they were loud, aggressive, punched the doors, shouted all night, hurled abuse at the officers. i was polite and merely asked when i was going to be released, and if i could have some water (taking steps to be responsible and not dehydrate on a stimulant come-down). i was treated worse than the drunks. the police laughed off the drunks outwardly anti-social behaviour. "just drunk mate". i was treated like a sub-human.Cybargs wrote:
It's even a high school graduating "tradition" to go get very drunk with your friends. Fuck it's even a marketable program now!Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i guess it makes sense dilbert doesn't see any of the alcohol problems, or know anyone that has suffered the endemically common alcohol problems in australia (a quarter of the adult population with an alcohol-related mental-health issue in their lifetime, wow). dilbert doesn't go out. it all makes sense. i guess when you don't see the saturday night bar-strip or beach resorts, the phantom and oft-preached 'nasties' of drugs is going to haunt you more.
http://www.schoolies.com/gold-coast/accommodation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guL4yxSDy-4
but yeah kekekeke. really rational. don't let the facts and figures interfere with your reality. it is empirically provable that alcohol/tobacco is far worse for your health, far more chemically toxic, and has a far greater cost in terms of physical/mental wellbeing, and cost to state/employers. but people will still talk about 'drugs being worse'. to the point where it should 'shame' someone's character if they use them. some people really are just inculcated with societies' taboos. like to a quasi-religious level.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-07 02:34:31)
I was a safety director at a trucking company and later a manager at an oil company.BVC wrote:
What sort of work was it, out of curiosity?
First time I've ever been laughed at for being in the military. Also, ever think that my experience there molded my attitude favoring small government. Stupid troll.Macbeth wrote:
lol you were in the military. Another guy who wants small government but was part of the national job program.
What an ignorant, misguided and unintelligent thing to say.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
he's not wrong. the military-industrial complex always puts lazy and directionless people to work in america.
no it's not unintelligent. loads of people use the armed forces as a way through college and for direction in life. about 3 people from this very forum did just that. is it wrong? does that contingent of people not exist?
well in jay's old essay he states that that's essentially what the military did to him.
it was candid and it was true for a lot of people. it's not "unintelligent" to say that. it's not even that controversial. the army has been seen as a route for disciplining and sorting out wayward/unmotivated/lost young men for a long time. "put them to a task". give them some "direction". bring them in "order". the army has existed in this capacity for centuries. either that or the navy - send them off to sea to "come back a man". the US army is basically a huge welfare scheme. there are grants and waivers and socialized finance systems to incentivize a young man to join the military. the us government needs a steady supply of young men in its decades-long effort to 'bring peace and freedom to the world'... in return it lets those young men get an education, courtesy of uncle sam. they also get to skip to the front of the queue for walmart jobs. how is that not socialism?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-07 07:13:29)
Yes, absolutely there are people like that. A very small percentage from my experience but I suppose that number may be higher in branches like the Army that will take just about anyone off the street. The USAF has very strict recruiting requirements and the Navy isn't much further behind. I figure the Marines probably weed out most with physical rigors and lousy living conditions.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
no it's not unintelligent. loads of people use the armed forces as a way through college and for direction in life. about 3 people from this very forum did just that. is it wrong? does that contingent of people not exist?
Also, just because you know 3 people that have admitted to being losers/leeches doesn't mean the entire fucking military is like that you shortsighted moron.
Last edited by Extra Medium (2013-06-07 07:15:41)
i said 3 people from this forum. the only people IRL i know who went military both graduated from sandhurst military academy (like our version of west point, only posher and tougher). one went into officer ranks of regular army, the other is now an officer in the royal marines. the latter is my first-cousin. i watched him graduate last month (he is now doing further training between exmouth and france; don't think i'll see him again for a year or more). they are not slackers, no. but then again they are officers. well educated and extremely top-notch officers.
the majority of enlisted fodder for iraq/afghan are people that left school either too poor to afford college or with shit grades. they needed a career and something to do, before welfare-checks and the bank of mom/dad turfed them out. don't try and make it out like most 19 year old young men go to iraq because they 'believe in the mission'. they either cynically want to get the benefits, i.e. GI bill, or they need something to do fast to get out of whatever mid-west shithole they're stuck in.
the majority of enlisted fodder for iraq/afghan are people that left school either too poor to afford college or with shit grades. they needed a career and something to do, before welfare-checks and the bank of mom/dad turfed them out. don't try and make it out like most 19 year old young men go to iraq because they 'believe in the mission'. they either cynically want to get the benefits, i.e. GI bill, or they need something to do fast to get out of whatever mid-west shithole they're stuck in.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-07 07:22:45)
So basically your basing your opinion of the entire U.S. military on the interaction you've had with 3 people on the internet?
Come on Uzi.
Come on Uzi.
no, i'm basing my judgement of 'average soldiers' on the sort of people who go into military service here. we are exposed to our servicemen in civilian life and in the media a lot, you know. they are not the sharpest tools in the box. they are people who left school without academic merit, 'good with hands', or sports-players who obviously aren't gonna go pro anytime soon. that sort of figure. in america it's just made worse because your college education is prohibitively expensive. thus the GI bill and stuff like that is seen as a 'non-standard route' for college education in the US. it is a structural thing. like, it's so embedded and taken for granted.
3 people? yeah this is really based on 3 people. how about you "come on". are you denying there's a contingent of american servicemen who only join so it will put them through college? or are you really trying to say that's "only 3 people", or else a tiny minority?
3 people? yeah this is really based on 3 people. how about you "come on". are you denying there's a contingent of american servicemen who only join so it will put them through college? or are you really trying to say that's "only 3 people", or else a tiny minority?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-07 08:04:42)
I'm with zique here
while I do know a couple who joined up simply for the experience, a lot of people I know simply joined up for benefits, or even citizenship.
Ofc the USAF attracts the cream of the crop for fighter pilots, but even then a lot of people see them as a way to get a good technical education as a maintainer, etc.
while I do know a couple who joined up simply for the experience, a lot of people I know simply joined up for benefits, or even citizenship.
Ofc the USAF attracts the cream of the crop for fighter pilots, but even then a lot of people see them as a way to get a good technical education as a maintainer, etc.
the thing with veterans is they get that rude pride and sense of entitlement and will never look back on themselves before joining the military and admit that their reasons for joining were either venal, cynical, or just trying to better themselves in any way possible. service seems to indoctrinate vets with a sense that their work was 'civil service' and was 'noble' and 'inspired' by 'good principles'. as if any 19 year old even gives a shit about that. most young teen dudes couldn't even give a shit about anyone beyond their immediate family and friends.
cougar don't pretend like military recruiters don't target low-income, parent-absent, directionless and generally below-average, in terms of school work, youth. i'm willing to bet they comprise more then just a minute fraction.
Are you calling MDMA and LSD "hard" because of scientific research or based upon their classification?Spearhead wrote:
Thats really quite a claim, coming from you and the field you work in. I know that weed isn't as bad as the hard stuff, obviously, but have never heard that about LSD or MDMA.Jaekus wrote:
On that note I find it fairly despicable that something I choose to ingest in my own home or recreational setting such as club or music festival can potentially get me into trouble. There's much worse stuff that goes on all around us and why the government feels it has certain rights over my person more than I is taking away my freedom. Go after organised crime, sure. Common user, no.
Some class A drugs are safer than many over the counter medications. the LD50 of LSD for example makes it one of the safest substances one can take. Pure MDMA or ecstasy that is not cut or tainted with other compounds (especially PMA) is far safer than alcohol.
Doesn't MDMA fuck with your dopamine levels? Like after enough use your brain no longer produces it? From what I've read it looks potentially very dangerous, but then again I don't work in the medical/mental health field.
Also is it true that cocaine is pretty harmless? Besides the addictive properties of it.
he didn't clarify that for me, either. not sure if he's somehow assuming drug classifications go according to a scale of 'hardness' (they don't).