Ex minister calls for drug legalisation

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • But what about Absynth, vodka and all, surely they are as dangerous as skunk, especially in the quantities that they are supplied in?


    With genuine Absinthe you'd have a point as its not simply alcohol. But with spirits I would not compare them to skunk as its more of the same rather than a whole different balance of active components as with skunk.


    Quote

    And as I edited this post, I'll ask the question again, do you drink in front of under 18's



    Yes, I do. (didnt see you post it first time :D)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • I consider them to be comparable...hence supporting decrim-ing plain old weed.
    Note, I do NOT mean skunk.



    Well I can tell you in all honesty of all the drugs I've taken alcohol has gotten me into most trouble. Weed had a negative effect on me so I don't smoke it anymore. MDMA and cocaine do not impair my judgment to the extent alcohol does and they don't leave me in the same mental mess weed did. I think it says a lot about how much knowledge you have of the other drugs that you'd choose to rate alcohol and weed as less harmful than coke or mdma. For me they are definitely worse. The worst drug for me personally was ket. The first few times I enjoyed the buzz and didn't react badly to it but the last time I took it I actually felt detached from reality and I never did or would use it again. Everyone reacts differently to different things.

  • I am not saying for one instant that dangerous situations (or potentially dangerous) should me made more so... :screwy:...


    I know you are not. It isnt crazy to do so though in a society which overwhelms natural caution. If you cannot remove that overwhelming environment (which would, as I said, be my preference) the next best option is to make the dangers greater (and so re-energise natural caution).


    Quote

    what I am saying is that divorcing people from their natural urges is what makes certain behaviours more dangerous; as it diffuses responsibility. So no I am not arguing that we 'need more danger'... we need more responsibility to be able to act in ways that are beneficial to ourselves and our social group.


    Whereas I am saying that in a environment like we have now, our natural urges are overwhelmed and driven to excess, effectively negating much of our capacity for sound judgement that we would otherwise be able to wield in a less alien and overwhelming environment.


    Quote

    And what evidence have you based this theory on... because as someone who has actually experienced the affects of drugs; as well as read medical reports on the affects of drugs... I personally think that the above statement is so far from reality that it is almost laughable...


    Right. So you also think that someone who is hypnotised to believe they are in love genuinely are in love, and that it doesnt actually require the relationship between two actual persons to be genuine (it only takes the synthesised 'feeling')?


    Quote

    But that is what people do with a wide variety of things... including inter-personal relationships, food, gambling... and a whole range of behaviours. If you take the question of legality out of the picture you can see that on an neuro-chemical level there is no difference between drug taking or being in love.


    Except that the neurochemical aspect is only part of it; it needs also the relationship itself. Otherwise it isnt really being in love, its just fantasising that you are.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • I know you are not. It isnt crazy to do so though in a society which overwhelms natural caution. If you cannot remove that overwhelming environment (which would, as I said, be my preference) the next best option is to make the dangers greater (and so re-energise natural caution).


    I have to disagree;especially as you have already argued that more adulterants should be added to drugs; that you support the death penalty for dealing as a means of deterrent. How much more dangerous can you get; believe me drugs are already that dangerous in some cases... but people still take heroin. In many many parts of the world the death penalty is already used to punish drug dealing; but does that fact deter people? What you are suggesting seems to reek of 'ethnic cleansing'... if people are stupid enough to do/deal drugs than they have given up their right to live???? :eek:




    Quote from Coyote

    Whereas I am saying that in a environment like we have now, our natural urges are overwhelmed and driven to excess, effectively negating much of our capacity for sound judgement that we would otherwise be able to wield in a less alien and overwhelming environment.


    While I do agree with you to an extent; we will never really agree on a) why this is so; b) the solution to this. As we both hold very different views of the world. So at this point I do not feel that it is constructive for us to discuss this any further.




    Quote from Coyote

    Right. So you also think that someone who is hypnotised to believe they are in love genuinely are in love, and that it doesnt actually require the relationship between two actual persons to be genuine (it only takes the synthesised 'feeling')?


    Hmmm you seem to be overlooking a very important fact about hypnotism; luckily I was taught by someone who *is* considered as an expert on this subject; you should read some of his work. He taught me a very important thing about hypnotism... You cannot make ANYBODY who is suggestible to hypnosis do ANYTHING that they would not normally do. Using your example; you could only be hypnotised into loving someone if you already had those feelings towards them. ;)


    I was asking for you to explain the differences on a neuro-chemical level for a specific reason, after reading a bit about how drugs affect the brain. It looks like you either accept that as far as our brains are concerned there is no real difference; or that you are refusing to learn the 'facts' for yourself. :shrug:




    Quote from Coyote

    Except that the neurochemical aspect is only part of it; it needs also the relationship itself. Otherwise it isnt really being in love, its just fantasising that you are.


    No, to be more specific it needs both parties to have the same neuro-chemical reaction to maintain the relationship... how else can we explain such things as 'falling out of love', stalking etc etc? The experience of 'love' is very real for someone who is obsessed with someone who is not in love with them; you cannot say that love only exists if both parties agree.

  • Incidentally, part of me does think we should legalise access to drugs....just so that we can hasten the collapse of an alien and messed up society that currently overwhelms the vast majority of folks. Having mass easy and hassle-free access to, and use of, ket, crack, smack, crystal, skunk, coke, halucingens like acid, and the like, would be akin to putting the accelerator hard down in a vehicle headed further into fragmented, isolated, private-self-obsession, fantasy, apathy and mindless indifference. :)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • For the second time in one week a comment from Coyote has made me cradle my face in my palm... OMFG! Lee you should really really get a job working for the DM :p

  • For the second time in one week a comment from Coyote has made me cradle my face in my palm... OMFG! Lee you should really really get a job working for the DM :p



    I did. They sacked me for being too right wing :p

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • I have to disagree;especially as you have already argued that more adulterants should be added to drugs; that you support the death penalty for dealing as a means of deterrent. How much more dangerous can you get; believe me drugs are already that dangerous in some cases... but people still take heroin. In many many parts of the world the death penalty is already used to punish drug dealing; but does that fact deter people? What you are suggesting seems to reek of 'ethnic cleansing'... if people are stupid enough to do/deal drugs than they have given up their right to live???? :eek:


    If you persistently peddle the drugs I consider to be most dangerous (see other thread) then yes, from my perspective you are an unrepentant well poisoner feeding on the misery and virtual slavery of others. Such people DO deserve the death sentence.


    I think you'll find the daily mail sets the bar a LOT lower than where I do on that. ;)


    Quote

    Hmmm you seem to be overlooking a very important fact about hypnotism; luckily I was taught by someone who *is* considered as an expert on this subject; you should read some of his work. He taught me a very important thing about hypnotism... You cannot make ANYBODY who is suggestible to hypnosis do ANYTHING that they would not normally do. Using your example; you could only be hypnotised into loving someone if you already had those feelings towards them. ;)


    No, it brings to the surface a potential. The person is not actually in love with the other bod prior to being hypnotised. Nor are they when they are hypnotised. Tis an illusion.


    Quote

    I was asking for you to explain the differences on a neuro-chemical level for a specific reason, after reading a bit about how drugs affect the brain. It looks like you either accept that as far as our brains are concerned there is no real difference; or that you are refusing to learn the 'facts' for yourself. :shrug:


    The neuro-chemical level is not the source of the difference. The difference is in the actual relationship with another part of the real world. You can take a drug that makes you feel in love, but love is defined not just by the feeling you experience but your relationship with and behavior towards another person.


    Quote

    No, to be more specific it needs both parties to have the same neuro-chemical reaction to maintain the relationship... how else can we explain such things as 'falling out of love', stalking etc etc? The experience of 'love' is very real for someone who is obsessed with someone who is not in love with them; you cannot say that love only exists if both parties agree.



    You need an actual other person to be in love with. The drug alone, which gives you the feeling, is not sufficient.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Lee I am so glad that your views reflect minority thinking. For someone who has been described as an 'academic' and also describes himself as being more community minded... the views you hold show you to be amongst the very lowest of society; the views you hold are very very similar to those that are held by facists, mass murderer's and others who believe that people who do certain things deserve to die... It is people like you that are part of the problem.


    You have shown a level of ignorance and prejudice that it makes it impossible to debate with you on this subject. You refuse to look at any facts that may change your views; your 'knowledge' of what you speak about (drugs, hypnotism, human nature) is so deeply flawed as a result of you holding the most negatively skewered views and your total reliance on subjective experience; that you seem to to be incapable of any rational thinking on subjects such as this. Your views are noxious to say the very least.... and as a result I am also out of this discussion... To all who carry on... good luck... you will need it. :waves:

  • Tekno, if you think that there is no difference between the sensations a drug produces in your head and the same sensations produced from a relationship with a real person, it really is no surprise that you wish to free up the access to these substances. I truly wonder what notion of community awareness and responsibility you hold more than lip service to, as the world you promote is the world where the solipsistic individual is king. The experiences you would wish more widely released upon society would have it further fragment as people disappear even more than they do now into the realm of personal sensations. Drugs are not pro commuity. They are a wedge driven into communities, fracturing off people into personal experience...as if reality is found in your head rather than in relation to world at large.


    I hope for your sake you find out how far from the truth you are, because what you preach is a gospel of despair that will only further alienate an already self-obsessed society.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote

    I hope for your sake you find out how far from the truth you are, because what you preach is a gospel of despair that will only further alienate an already self-obsessed society.


    It can be said that sometimes one shouts loudest about the faults one sees in other people that are present in yourself, and I find that statement says more about you than Techno:).
    I've had to withdraw from this as I realise it is fruitless debating with you as you are so entrenched in your position,a stance that I feel has been arrived at with very limited information, you seem to inhabit a world no one else seems to recognise and also, I don't have the time or the typing skills to keep up:D.
    Your stance on the death penalty appalls me,I hope that you can find it in your heart to eventually have more faith in the society you say you care about.

  • Lee I am so glad that your views reflect minority thinking. For someone who has been described as an 'academic' and also describes himself as being more community minded... the views you hold show you to be amongst the very lowest of society; the views you hold are very very similar to those that are held by facists, mass murderer's and others who believe that people who do certain things deserve to die... It is people like you that are part of the problem.


    You have shown a level of ignorance and prejudice that it makes it impossible to debate with you on this subject. You refuse to look at any facts that may change your views; your 'knowledge' of what you speak about (drugs, hypnotism, human nature) is so deeply flawed as a result of you holding the most negatively skewered views and your total reliance on subjective experience; that you seem to to be incapable of any rational thinking on subjects such as this. Your views are noxious to say the very least.... and as a result I am also out of this discussion... To all who carry on... good luck... you will need it. :waves:

    Very well said.

  • It can be said that sometimes one shouts loudest about the faults one sees in other people that are present in yourself, and I find that statement says more about you than Techno:).


    So does Teknos say more about herself then about me?

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Tekno, if you think that there is no difference between the sensations a drug produces in your head and the same sensations produced from a relationship with a real person, it really is no surprise that you wish to free up the access to these substances.


    For someone who seems overwhelmingly reductionist, it seems like a massive contradiction in terms to state that drugs cannot have the same effect that relationships with people do, provided they act on the same receptors.


    There are a lot of flaws in your logic.


    Also, the question about if someone is hypnotised is not as black and white as you seem to think it is. It is entirely concerning subjective point of view, rather than objective fact.

  • For someone who seems overwhelmingly reductionist, it seems like a massive contradiction in terms to state that drugs cannot have the same effect that relationships with people do, provided they act on the same receptors.


    And if you actually bothered to read what I'd put, before jumping in kung-fu like, you'd have noticed that I hadn't actually said that "drugs cannot have the same effect that relationships with people do, provided they act on the same receptors" but that the drug is essentially a fictionalised version because it is a response that does not relate to the actual wider world.


    Quote

    There are a lot of flaws in your logic.


    No, there are a lot of flaws in your comprehension.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • And if you actually bothered to read what I'd put, before jumping in kung-fu like, you'd have noticed that I hadn't actually said that "drugs cannot have the same effect that relationships with people do, provided they act on the same receptors" but that the drug is essentially a fictionalised version because it is a response that does not relate to the actual wider world.




    No, there are a lot of flaws in your comprehension.



    Wrong again, i did read what you'd said. Ive read the whole thread. Any you have missed my point entirely.
    A person is an effector (from the real world)
    A drug is an effector (from the real world)


    We can relate feelings from both to the real world by drawing parallels.


    Also for any version to be fictionalised in any sense it must differ in some way from the true account. If the chemical reactions can be reduced to exactly the same thing then where are you drawing this difference. This is the contradiction.


    You may not have meant to say that:
    "drugs cannot have the same effect that relationships with people do, provided they act on the same receptors"
    But you have unwittingly done so.


    It is entirely perspective based, we cannot say that any of us truly exist (although something must necessarily exist, but only one thing, i shant go into that here though, unless you wish me to further elucidate) , therefore all parrallels we draw from experiences are either all "true" or all "fictional" , that is to say that they dont have a truth value to draw this notion of fiction from.


    This shows both the drugs and the people to be equal in terms of our supposed truth.


    So i would further conject that : yes there is a flaw in your logic


  • Then I look forward to when a pill phones the doctor when you are ill :p


    The experience the drug gives is not real, it is a simulation of the feeling without the substance.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Then I look forward to when a pill phones the doctor when you are ill :p


    The experience the drug gives is not real, it is a simulation of the feeling without the substance.


    Again, i don't know how you are gauging this notion of reality. Just because a pill isn't sentient it doesn't make it any less real.


    Why would i need the doctor if i already have the pills. :p


    I still think your logic is flawed (in a purely reductionist sense), However i do acknowledge your point that the human nature of something has a very special quality in itself. My problem comes when you try to differentiate between truth and fiction in a purely reductionist manner as we have been doing.


    If we can escape reductionism for a minute, i think you pose an interesting point, but it is one that we can only explore with subjective concept due to the very nature of it. The mind-body problem is at the basis of this argument, and until we can solve that one, i believe it is insufficient so suppose anything further.
    If indeed the human touch adds to any experience a subjective non reducible element, then we can suppose that the pill and the human touch are different, if not then they are one and the same.


    Proving this is another matter, but i'm keen to have a go and i have a sneaking suspicion that we might be on the same wavelength here.


    Edit : i like the word substance, and i propose that we substitute the phrase "subjective non reducible element" for substance for ease of writing.


    Edit 2: this might be better off in the philosophy section, and ill start a topic if you so wish, we can use the person pill argument for ease of continuity.

  • Again, i don't know how you are gauging this notion of reality. Just because a pill isn't sentient it doesn't make it any less real.


    The pill is real, the relationship is not; the pill provides the feeling without the substance.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • We both much concede that reductionism isn't the be all and end all if we follow this line of reasoning (which i'm perfectly happy with).


    The problem is proving that the pill does not also have substance as well as the human touch. We certainly cant prove it for the latter, so how can we prove it for the former?


    Like i said before, impossible until we solve the mind body problem. But your hypothesis is a good one nonetheless.

  • The problem is proving that the pill does not also have substance as well as the human touch. We certainly cant prove it for the latter, so how can we prove it for the former?


    Lets see you and a pill produce a next generation...;)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Lets see you and a pill produce a next generation...;)



    That statement is entirely meaningless.


    It doesn't provide proof for anything, other than pills and people are different. This is apparent.


    The problem is the subjectivity that arises with the mind body problem.


  • The problem is the subjectivity that arises with the mind body problem.



    No, the problem is when you think a drug induced sensation is comparable in any meaningful way to the real world :)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • No, the problem is when you think a drug induced sensation is comparable in any meaningful way to the real world :)



    I rest my case, you've just done the philosophical equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.


    meaningful is an entirely subjective term, and you have just unwittingly shown that the entirety of the argument is not currently provable, because of the underlying subjectivity that arises from the mind body problem as opposed to the objective (reductionist) reality that you seem to promote.


    Note: My arguments sometimes come across very blunt, please don't take offence to them, i just love a bloody good philosophical argument, you don't seem like the kind of bloke to take offence anyway but i thought id better make sure. It is the internet after all and text isnt the same as speech.

  • I rest my case, you've just done the philosophical equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.


    meaningful is an entirely subjective term, and you have just unwittingly shown that the entirety of the argument is not currently provable, because of the underlying subjectivity that arises from the mind body problem as opposed to the objective (reductionist) reality that you seem to promote.


    Sorry, but if "meaningful" is entirely subjective, you cannot actually say that "meaningful" is subjective...it needs to have an objective state to make a coherent statement about it. :)


    "A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t." (Roger Scruton).

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Sorry, but if "meaningful" is entirely subjective, you cannot actually say that "meaningful" is subjective...it needs to have an objective state to make a coherent statement about it. :)


    "A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t." (Roger Scruton).



    You dont actually know what subjective is do you?


    sub·jec·tive   
    [suhb-jek-tiv]
    –adjective
    1.
    existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
    2.
    pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
    3.
    placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
    4.
    Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
    5.
    relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
    6.
    pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.


    So clearly i can say that it is subjective as it is a matter of perspective.


    Also when did i say there was no objective truth? We can get started on objective reality if you want but i promise it wont help your argument.


    Keep digging :)



  • Yes, and if you claim that meaning is subjective, you cannot actually claim that meaning is subjective because that would be an objective statement. Is this the insight the gods gave you when you took ket? ;)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."