Posts by tekno

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.

    Assuming for a moment that you are correct (when you say that "given the opportunity that most people behave responsibly when those behavioural controls are relaxed"), why do you think they do so? Are you not saying, essentially, that the more dangerous the situation is, the more cautious people are?

    In the face of danger (not risk) people are naturally (though the process of evolution; protecting the chances of our species survival) more inclined to act in manner that is responsible to keep themselves (and also people around them; we are social mammals after all) safe. I am not saying for one instant that dangerous situations (or potentially dangerous) should me made more so... :screwy:... 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. But I am repeating myself.., I have already said this (albeit it in different ways) many many times on this thread.

    Quote from Coyote

    Quite simply, the latter is responding to an actual change in the world whilst the former is not. The latter is a relationship with the world, whilst the former is purely about an experience that bares no relation to wider reality.

    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...

    Quote from Coyote

    What concerns me is people living on illusions that are not relating to the reality of the wider world around them.

    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.

    Quote from Coyote

    Which brings me back to the point I raised a while back. What do you think of my idea that drug use (including medical psychoative use) is a strange variation on Stoicism? A Stoic being, for those who dont know, someone who seeks to remake "his will to suit the world and remain, in the words of Epictetus, "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy,""(Source). I say "strange" because where the Stoic seeks to do this by bringing his will into line with reality, whilst the drug user seeks to bring their will into line with a fantasy that they hope and wish were true but do not believe it (hence needing to force the issue with a drug.

    To be honest Lee I don't think I could argue for or against... you seem to be thinking in a quite dualistic way on this matter; as a result you are totally unwilling to accept that yes for some people your statement may be applicable; for others not. You really do need to stop thinking in such black and white terms on this matter; as well as going away and actually learning about these substances you claim to know so much about. Because as it stands at present I agree with Atomik; you are showing that (on this subject) you are ignorant and prejudiced. And it is this kind of thinking that is stopping our society from dealing with the issues that drug taking poses. :shrug:

    Of course they are; anything which obscures reality is dangerous because it impares judgement.

    Hmmm so you yourself could be said to have impaired judgement (on this issue specifically) as your 'thinking' is biased by your own skewered perception... A skewered perction that does increase the risks associated with drug taking. Or does this only apply to people who take substances that you think are highly dangerous?

    I dont know. Are you agreeing that if things are more dangerous people become more cautious and less blase (unless they are stupid, ignorant of the danger or are being overwhelmed by other environmental factors so that they cannot generally make reasonable decisions)?

    No I am saying that these control on behaviour is what is making things (eg driving; drug taking) more dangerous. And that when given the opportunity that most people behave responsibly when those behavioural controls are relaxed...

    Quote from Coyote

    I dont understand how you question varies what I've already addressed. :S

    It didn't; what I was asking for you to do is explain why it is so bad for a drug to alter your brain chemistry (which is all a drug does) and not bad for your brain chemistry to be altered by being attracted to someone. If it is the altering of chemicals in the brain that is concerning you (as it seemed to at that point of this debate) then you really should be concerned about anything that could alter our reality... which being attracted to someone does.

    I think medusa was pointing out that we are using the same basic arguement; that increased danger makes people more cautious.

    She may well have been;I was pointing out that I believe that giving people more responsibility; and take away certain controls n their behaviour; that most people will act in a way that is socially responsible. Which is very different from what you are saying, is it not?

    Also care to reply to my question re the affects that inter-personal attraction and drugs have on our brains? ;)

    Or like Teknos earlier argument that removing road markings made people less blase and more personally responsible? She was arguing that in support of legalising,coyotes using the same argument against so there must be *something* to it..

    Hmmm; hate to split hairs but the arguments are slightly different... take way road markings et al (controls on your behaviour; which can be argued to distance drivers from the responsibility of driving)... and take away the brakes from cars (the things that hopefully stop the car in case of emergencies) are a wee bit different. The former gives control to the driver and also pedestrian; whereas the latter would take control away from everyone. ;)

    As I said, by definition they do not point at reality because they do not reference the experience to anything.

    In your experience; I would say different; as would many others.

    Quote from Coyote

    The drug creates the sensation irrespective of the rest of the world.

    At the level of analysis you are talking about (neuro-chemical) so does being attracted to some one... So your point is?

    Quote from Coyote

    'ALL drug-based experience remain artificial, fake, contrived, throughout.'

    I need to clarify why you believe this to be true; is it because the drug is foreign to our natural bodies/brains, and causes a change in our brain chemistry that makes ALL drug based experience remain artificial, fake, contrived, throughout? If so then what about interpersonal attraction? A foreign body (fnar fnar) alters your brain chemistry in such a way that you experience... blah blah blah.

    When you move in circles where drugs are common, you'll see more of them. When you move in circles where drugs are less common, you'll see less of them. Its self evident.

    Yes, that is true. But you seemed to be arguing that public drug taking was minimal?? It may be in your area (or not; seeing as you really do not seem to really grasp the affects of each drug; so you wouldn't be able to tell if someone had been taking drugs unless you actually saw them do it) but not in the vast majority of the country; especially in cities.

    Quote from Coyote

    The entire sodding town/etc should be a "no drug" zone. :S

    According to our government; that is the way it should be is it not? But it is not; also (apart from dodgy batches of heroin) what do you think causes the residents of Brighton more trouble, excessive drug or alcohol use?

    Quote from Coyote

    You dont need to assure the quality of ket, crack, etc. Its like saying its better for people to self-harm with a clean new knife than a rusty one. Its better that they dont fragging self-harm at all so stop letting them have a knife inthe first place. :S

    Of course it would be better for people not to self harm; speaking as someone whose sister is a self harmer I would say that I would rather she and other self harmers were given the support to minimise the harm they cause to themselves. I have seen first hand (as will many people who work in mental health units) the harm that stopping a self-harmer from cutting (or whatever it is they do) has. It causes the self harmer to literally explode when they get the chance (which they will) to harm themselves. I know this for fact, take away the means for someone to 'safely' (except for the risk of scarring) express themselves (even if they are damaging their body) they are more likely to a) not harm themselves as much as they could; b) find other ways to express their feelings without resorting to cutting (or whatever). Did you not know that people who self harm in mental units are given the equipment and safe space to do so?

    It's funny you should use this as an example to support your 'argument'; to my mind it support the notion that we need to legalise drugs. ;)

    Quote from Coyote

    Legalise speeding (take away the speed limits) and see what happens. Reckless driving will increase. Its a bizarre idea that legalising something does not increase the ease of use, and from that the actual use. It makes no sense. And it makes no sense because in other matters when you make something easier to get, usage goes up. And yes I know drugs are already available on our streets....but add legality to that and it makes it easier to get them not harder.

    We have already seen a good example in our own country of what happens when you take away restrictions on traffic, in the case I mentioned earlier it was traffic lights and road marking that was removed; in a very busy area of London; so far accidents in that area have decreased not increased. How do you know that the same thing wouldn't occur if the speed limits was taken away, it works in Germany. If you treat people like idiots by telling them what to do constantly, they are more likely to act like idiots... On the subject of drugs... it is really easy to get drugs already; so your point is?

    Quote from Coyote

    If I want a bottle of beer, I walk to the local shop, buy it and carry it back. All without any danger whatsoever. I cannot be arrested for buying it, the seller cannot be arrested for selling it, I know its a safe product, I know I wont get arrested for carrying home, I could even sit in my garden and drink it. Criminalise beer (hypothetically for a moment) and its a risk to buy it, its a risk to sell it, its a risk to transport it, and its a risk to use it (both to health and to liberty). Are you seriously claiming that people are ignoring the risks and doing all of this already?! If they are not, usage will increase from legalisation. If they are, it shows a woefull lack of responsibility and judgement on their part risking all that for a buzz. :S

    So you are saying that if alcohol was to be made illegal you would stop drinking; fair enough. But as you acert you do not have a problem with alcohol, or really enjoy getting drunk. The risks of binge drinking are already estabished and well known; does it stop people? People known the risks associated with the illegality of their drug use, has it stopped anyone taking drugs? You asked in your 'Excessive Pleasure' thread if people (may be the wrong word; cannot be bothred to check - sorry :)) are naturally drawn to certain plasures found in their environment, I said yes. One of those pleasures is consuming substances that alter your brain chemistry.... humans are not the only mammal group to do this... So is it a 'woefull lack of responsibility and judgement on their part risking all that for a buzz'; or rather something that most mammals enjoy doing?

    Coyote you are living in the country... my guess is that Pete has lived in more urban areas; like you did yourself once. I know that when I went to Nottingham quite a few years ago now; I managed to buy (after being there for a couple of hours) some weed, pills and my mates got some coke, we bought it on the high street. I live in the 'drug capital' of Britain (supposedly); I have seen people take K in public parks, shoot up whilst on a busy street in the middle of the day. Just because you personally have not seen people taking drugs very openly in public it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Because drugs are illegal we cannot impose 'no drug' zones, as we do with alcohol; we do not offer people who take drugs a 'safer' environment to consume drugs in the same way as we do with alcohol. We cannot assure the quality of the drugs people *are* taking. Every time something is put on the 'not allowed list' a new, usually nastier drug replaces it. There is no evidence that supports your notion that legalising drugs will cause an increase in drug taking. Millions of people are already taking drugs, many on a regular basis, Millions more will go on to try them; what I find really hard to understand is why you think more regulation and quality assurance is such a bad thing, like you said (not word for word) only an idiot would think they could stop all drug taking.

    Assure quality?! :S For an awful lot of them, that's a bit like asking for purer arsenic. :eek:

    Care to expand upon that really sensationalist statement. I will give you one example that shows you to be wrong... heroin... a much much 'safer' (although the risk of addiction is still there; like there is for alcohol, sex, chocolate, gambling etc etc) drug when it is given in its pure (medical grade) form. Users know how much to use as they know the purity of the drug. As it stands today heroin users do not always know how pure their gear is; meaning they don't really know if the gear they are going to use is 40 or 90% pure... this leads to accidental overdoses. Now I have given that example can you provide some that shows that regulating the drug market and assure drug quality would be asking for purer arsenic (:rolleyes:)... This is part of the problem with this drugs debate... both side have a very different understanding of the affects and risks associated with drug taking.

    Not in anything like the same way as alcohol. Historically, why do you think alcohol has become the "drug of choice" as compared to those others? It could be blended into society far more than they could.

    Or maybe because, historically speaking of course, the fact that historically alcohol was safer to drink than water... Drinking fluid is an everyday need; hence why alcohol is far more 'blended into society'... :rolleyes:

    Quote from Coyote

    I doubt that. Delivering powders and pills is easy, but alcohol is bulky stuff.

    It doesn't appear to put people off in prison where controls on behaviour are really really strict... people find ways and means. :shrug:

    I am more than happy to address the real issues raised by my statement; which was that alcohol is not so dangerous that it needs banning.

    Ok; so you think you can honestly say that ecstasy, LSD, any of the 2C family, cannabis, heroin (medical grade), cocaine, amphetamine are any more dangerous to our society and the individuals who take them than alcohol? Especially when you take into consideration the yearly deaths linked to all these drugs (alcohol I think is still number one in the killing people league); the amount of people in A&E departments (if you compare alcohol to all other drugs you still find that more people go to A&E as a result of drinking) etc etc... Alcohol has been shown (as I said earlier) to be one of the most dangerous drugs avaliable to humans.. you cannot argue that it is 'not that dangerous' and still expect people to believe you hold a rational position on this subject.


    I still dont understand your question. :S

    Now I have read it again I understand why... And my interweb connection is being stoopid which is why I posted that unclear question twice... what I should have said was .... not cared about the extra effort needed to make their own alcohol if they found they could no longer afford it....

    The fact that your corresponding argument only works if you actually do omit that word. Keep it, and the context it was posted in, in place and it makes your whole rant a divergent straw man.

    Hmm you may see it like that; but I don't you know my argument is valid... why else would you continue splitting hairs instead of addressing the issues raised?

    Quote from coyote

    More work and patience than spending £2 at tesco for a bottle of White Lightning.

    And you think people would care about that if they no longer had access to cheap alcohol?

    Disingenuous nonsense. I clearly had not said that alcohol is not dangerous, but rather that it is not dangerous enough to ban. You little rant was clearly based on your misapprehension that I'd said it wasnt dangerous.

    What part of 'I accidentally omitted the word the first time' are you finding hard to grasp?

    Quote from coyote

    Yes, because expensive alcohol is less likely to lead to frequent binge drinking than cheap alcohol enables.

    Yes that'll work because alcohol is sooo hard to make... :whistle:

    Quote from Coyote

    I've already given my reasons why. Go back, find and read them if you are interested.

    I wasn't asking why; just showing my bemusement at your 'reasoning' on this subject...

    Nothing is bizarre about it. Making it part of an accusation that I said alcohol wasnt dangerous is bizarre.

    OMFG.. you said that you noticed that I correctly quoted you the 2nd time... but still can't grasp that I accidentially ommitted the word the first time?!?

    So you think that alcohol is dangerous enough to make sure that the cheap, nasty stuff is made more expensive... but it is still not dangerous enough to warrant being banned... but you think that all illict drugs (except cannabis - not skunk) should remain illegal... even after considering the fact that alcohol has been recognised (by people who are medically/scientifically trained) as being one of the most dangerous drugs available to humans.... my god and you say that I tend to look for positives about my narcotics of choice :eek:

    Which you then used to try and construct some bizarre argument that I had said alcohol isnt dangerous (and should go and tell various people that).

    What is so bizarre about pointing out the dangers alcohol can pose? Or do you not like reading that alcohol really can be that dangerous?
    (Can't believe I am facilitating your hair-splitting; but fyi... I did correctly include the 'that' in the second paragraph of my initial diatribe)

    Quote from Coyote

    Except that "still drinking" usually implies "a drunk", especially when you are suggesting it is beffudling my reading. Really, get over it.

    Oh I see what's going on now; you are having a hissy fit because I inferred you are a drunk... well for someone who mentions drinking on this forum as often as you do; you can't really blame me can you. It is quite funny that you of all people would get upset at having someone assume you have a drug problem; seeing as you have done the same to so many forum members on many, many occasions. Get over it ;)

    For pities sake. :rolleyes:

    Matty asked me if I considered alcohol should be banned. I said I do not consider alcohol to be that dangerous. You turned that into some bizarre claim that I'd said alcohol is not dangerous. And then after making a quip about me drinking wine you've got the nerve to get snooty of a similar line about coke. Get a grip.

    And this years 'so obtuse it fooking hurts' award is given to...

    As I said I forgot to type that word; I honestly over looked that when I read my post before posting!!!! :frust:

    I also said my jibe was based on reality... you are still drinking... I on the other hand have been no-where near coke for almost two years now... so you can maybe understand my reaction to you saying I should 'lay off the coke'...

    Oh shit I forgot to type a word... the point you are missing Lee is that I wouldn't ever say that any drug is 'not that dangerous' as you just did. Now could you try to debate without splitting hairs?

    Now quite a few posts back I explained that I don't really (apart from one pill) do drugs (well I still love tea, nicotine and chocolate) any more

    .. So please try to refrain from trying to infer that I have a problem with cocaine... I based my jibe about you on what you told us (you are still drinking). You know; facts not what I choose to believe about you :rolleyes:

    I did also say that "alcohol is not dangerous", as you claim, but rather what I said was "I dont consider alcohol to be that dangerous; rather that it is access to very cheap alcohol (especially in a society like ours) that is the problem". So as your own advice goes....."please read posts properly".

    But I quoted you word for word... :rolleyes: I chose not include the last part as it is rather obvious...

    Quote from coyote

    Hardly; its different people misreading the same posts in different ways.

    Yeah, I suppose it would be easier for you to believe that. You should lay off the wine a wee bit... your grip on reality would be a little firmer... and you'd stand more of a chance of following your own arguments :angel:

    *EDIT* Lee you are aware that my last post was a reaction to something you typed (specifically 'I do not consider alcohol to be that dangerous')... as it seems that you really did miss the point of my post...

    Tekno, I dare you to say that cocaine is not dangerous to anyone who has a) lost a relative/someone they care about as a result of driving under the influence; b) anyone who has been beaten up by someone who is high; c) known someone who was killed by someone who was high; d) watch someone die as a result of drug abuse... shall I continue?

    I did say... that I do not think any drug is risk free :rolleyes:... please read posts properly before assuming I would be as stupid to think that they don't.

    Quote from coyote

    Wow. Some think I want to take alcohol out of the reach of the masses, whilst others seem to think I'm promoting alcohol irresponsiblity. :insane:

    Yes... it is strange how one person could fluctuate so wildly in his views that people could (quite validly) pull him up on both points.. yes truly amazing :screwy:

    Coyote I dare you to say that alcohol is not dangerous to anyone who has a) lost a relative/someone they care about as a result of drinking and driving; b) anyone who has been beaten up by someone who is drunk; c) known someone who was killed by someone who was drunk; d) watch someone die as a result of alcohol abuse... shall I continue?

    For someone who professes to be more responsible than your average person... and by the same token have a certain amount of knowledge and wisdom... you are doing a piss poor job of showing it when you say things like 'I don't consider alcohol to be that dangerous' (funny that your narcotic of choice is risk free and all others are set out to control us and kill reality... :rolleyes: )... I for one would never say that taking any drug is danger-free; there are risks attached to taking any drug. What you are saying is highly irresponsible (both on an individual and social level); totally unfounded on fact... and just plainly wrong!

    Not really. There is certainly no requirement for Tekno to say what in particular she likes about drug taking. :shrug:I asked, she said no, I said what ammounts to "fair enough" :)

    Bullshit, you know what you are doing... as does everyone else who has ever debated with you. If what you are saying is true, why not just say 'fair enough' and leave it at that, you know like most people do...

    Riiiight. And its nothing to do with the experience itself being attractive to a jaded and self obsessed (latest in a line of) generation(s)?

    Does that explain why humans have been using narcotics for millennia... do you think we started down that path as the experience was attractive to a jaded and self-obsessed (latest line of) generations(s)? ;)

    Quote from Coyote

    Sometimes prohibition is necessary because of the harm potential. That is why, if I recall the arguement correctly, many people opposed generalised carrying of handguns. Or are people now also responsible enough to carry a self-defence handgun around, given that they are apparently to be trusted with these addictive and mind altering pills, potions and powders....

    Potentially addictive substances... So should I say that yes of course people should carry arms for self defence just because I believe that our current stance on drugs is wrong? Guns are designed for one thing... killing/injuring people. I can't think of any reason for wanting to carry around a gun... if you want to defend yourself there are much better ways. Are drugs manufactured to do the same thing? It is much easier to cause harm with a gun than it is a pill, line or whatever.

    Quote from Coyote

    The trouble is, you are making a world-of-the-bleeding-obvious point there. Of course people can be trusted to do somethings. If they couldnt, the population would be in an asylum tranqued up to the eyeballs whilst being drip fed mashed carrot by matron. The point that they can be trusted with some things does not mean they can be trusted with anything....but of course they cant, and yourself have said that before, until it comes to your recreational activity of choice. Hmmm, convenient that. :whistle:

    The same accusation could be levied at yourself; I would quite happily see alcohol banned, the same as Prozac and other legal psycho-actives, they do cause far more harm both to the individuals using them and society as a whole. If we are going to ban things because they are potentially harmful; let's go the whole hog? Also you seem to believe that I am pro-drug for entirely selfish reasons, I feel that is quite a low assumption to make of someone you don't know. As I keep saying I base my thinking on this subjects on facts; as well as my own personal experiences, and would like to see drugs legalised for many many good reasons.

    Quote from Coyote

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you *drumroll* Prozac. Your narcotics of choice are illegal, but there are some that are legal and very effective they are at keeping people nicely in check in a messed up society. But hey, society isnt the problem, its the fact that someone's narcotic of preference isnt available. :insane: Different label, same chemical driven docility (assuming for a moment its not the psychosis inducing poison like crack).

    OMFG!!! Really... shiiiiit man I thought all dem drugz was good... :rolleyes: Can you tell me which illegal narcotic Prozac is similar to in affect? Can you please tell me how benzodiazepines work and what drug they are more similar to? My problem with the illegality of cannabis, ecstasy, heroin, cocaine, MDMA, hallucinogenics, amphetamines.. is the fact that a) they have all at some point (and still are in some cases today) used therapeutically... with very good results... far better than the pharma-nasties you have mentioned; b) none have been shown scientifically (except for crack; which yes should remain illegal) to be any more harmful to the user or society as alcohol or pharma-nasties... So when we are talking about chemical driven docility you need to be looking at different groups of chemicals... one's that are state sponsored. Now I've finished that mini rant... let me move on to my next. You seem to think that if I was not a drug user than I would probably not think the way I do. To be honest these days I am really not a drug user... I have taken drugs twice this year... in total I have had... a pill. I gave up the weed, and am on the road to being a non smoker. Even though my own attitudes towards me taking drugs has changed; I will not believe that prohibition is a good idea; not when there is so much reliable, real-wordl evidence that shows the reverse to be true.

    Quote from Coyote

    You dont have to, but its interesting that you wont. If you change your mind, feel free... ;)

    No the word you are looking for is OBVIOUS not interesting. You accused me of putting my child at risk of being orphaned because I shared with you the extent of my drug use (which was minimal), as well as asserting that my judgement was impaired as well as saying that I 'lived in a world of fantasy'... and you think I would be willing to put myself in that position again... you must be off your head ;)

    Adults are POTENTIALLY able to make responsible decisions; if the necessary preconditions are present - part of which is learning responsibility with the "plastic scissors" of life rather than giving them a chainsaw at age 18.

    Maybe you see chainsaws when all there is is plastic scissors. ;) Personally I think that we should be helping our young make responsible decisions; this is usually attained through example, experience and also information... not simply just by saying something is wrong. Sorry but this is why so many young people still think it's 'glamorous' or 'hard' to take drugs...

    Quote from Coyote

    Can you please explain how giving them access to hard drugs alleviates or gets past all of that 'programming' into magically allowing them to be able to be responsible with mind altering substances? And it isnt just about "informed", its about "wise" and "socially responsible".

    I didn't...? And never said it would. But there is reams and reams and reams of well-respected papers out there that show that people can take mind altering substances and be responsible with them, as well as being socially responsible. Taking drugs occasionally, or even on a semi regular basis does not make you an irresponsible person. Information; not prohibition is the best path to wisdom; no matter how hard you to argue that it is not.

    Quote from Coyote

    Giving them an allotment to dig really is not comparable to going "here you go, addictive and mind altering substances....this is what they do, now help yourself". :eek:

    Fuck off! Now you are being deliberately obtuse; you know for fact (like everyone else who is reading this thread) that I was using this as an example of how; when given the chance; people who would normally be judged to be incapable of making responsible decisions manage to do so every day, and not only make a passable job of what they are taking responsibility for; but make a fooking excellent job of it. These are teenage families we are talking about, kids with more ASBO's than sense, they type you normally point at as being the reason for believing that no-one can be responsible enough to make drugs legal... :rolleyes:

    Quote from Coyote

    Did I say "Child abusers are just irresponsible... we [should] do herd up all child abusers and make them learn responsibility". I was making a point that one moment its all ":panic: Society is all fucked up, there are paedos all over the place" then the next its all "oooo but people can be trusted with mind altering substances that are highly addictive as a form of recreation". :insane:

    Right I really cannot see the point of skirting around this any further. Coyote you know for fact that I am one of these people who does quote rates of child abuse; you also know my stance on drugs. I thought I explained really clearly (and at great length) why I think the way I do... please go back and read what I wrote again, as I am getting quite bored of this derailing of a serious debate...

    Quote from Coyote

    Far FAR harsher punishments for those who sell the drugs. Treat them on a par with the well poisoners they really are. It boggles the mind how so many of the pro drug crowd are anti govt....when for years drugs have been encouraged by govts in order to keep a society docile. :S Do they make you less of a drooling halucinating zombie if you choose to use them yourself? :insane:

    Now can you try and say that again without the use of needlessly emotive and sensationalised language? As personally I find the phrase 'drooling hallucinating zombie' (used in this context, only on Halloween is that phrase applicable) rather insulting. As I am sure you find the phrase 'close minded, right wing, arrogant twat' just as insulting. So lets play nice yes... I have been trying to remain 'civil'; but I do have a cut off point for your crap. If drugs were being used to keep society docile, then you would think they would have decriminalised them at least, we all know how very fond British governments are of a) taxation, b) telling people what is good for them...

    Quote from Coyote

    What is it that you enjoy about it in particular? You described yourself as intelligent and reasonable...can you unpack your attraction to the drugs you use?

    No, I asked you to remember that I am an intelligent, reasonable and responsible person and would like to be treated as such. I will not unpack my reasons for recreationally taking drugs any further than I already have; as I refuse to debate with you on this subject on a personal level. As we all know what you tend to do when I divulge personal details of my drug taking...

    ...along with the appropriate tutilatory experiences. Wisdom does not appear as a fully wrapped gift on your 18th birthday. It needs to be gained through deeds and experiences. If those life lessons are absent, so then is wisdom.

    Never said that it did... I merely pointed out that adults are more able to make responsible decisions. I never said at what age, or even implied that wisdom appears fully gift wrapped on your 18th birthday. We all have life experiences, thoughts on those, learn from them, etc, etc.

    Quote from Coyote

    Hold on! Are you actually disagreeing with my statement that empowerment "needs to be gradual after experiencing a scaling grade of danger and in a more generally hostile environment (rather than raising people as cotton wooled spoiled brats before dumping onto them an environment they lack the tools to judge - specifically the normalising of hard drugs)"? Seriously?!

    Yes; as I do not hold with your idea that 'people are cotton wooled spoiled brats'... Although I do agree that as a society we are geared to go for the easiest option in so many ways (alleviating boredom, eating, et al); ffs I was raised in the '80's! I do not agree that when given the opportunity that people will act irresponsibly when certain controls on their behaviour are relaxed. I (as someone who does actually read statistical reports on such matters) think there is more case to argue the exact opposite based on the rise on drug production, addiction, and also recreational use of drugs. I know you vehemently oppose this way of thinking; I can understand why to a very small extent; but I think your basis for your argument if ultimately skewered in a negative way. You think that as we already have high levels of loads of crap things (sorry for paraphrasing so sloppily; but this is a bit of a rant so I am just conserving energy; as I mean to go on and on for some time :)), you see this (as I do funnily enough) as a result of the 'infantising' of many sections of society. There's too many 'sweets in the sweet shop' to borrow one of your phrases, as a result of this people are making decisions that are not responsible. I again agree with this to an extent; but the important difference between our thinking on this matter; is I also believe that there are too many limitations put on people who are led to believe they can attain anything. That so many aspects of our lives are already so heavily 'nannied' have have been for quite some time that people do not feel they have the 'power' to make informed decisions, now couple that with poor diet, bad education, poor role models and you get people who seem incapable of making responsible decisions.

    Quote from Coyote

    I would like to see people having more responsibility, but you dont dump it on them in one go (and that is assuming they can ever be such given the environment we now live in).

    Why not? I can think of plenty of instances where people have been given tremendous amounts of responsibility and deal with it very well. You won't find many news reports on that kind of thing though; as good news never sells. But you do see teenage parents who raise really lovely kids; as well as getting an education for themselves. The most affective form of therapy is one where the 'patient' takes responsibility for the direction of their therapy (CBT), the therapist is just there to guide them and offer an alternative point of view. I know that on every council estate in Brighton(barring one) there is a community allotment; people are taking responsibility of these areas of land and are producing their own food as a community; this happens on two of the most notorious estates in our city. Both allotments people said were 'doomed' to fail; three years later both are still going strong, and are helping teach a new generation to take responsibility for what they put into their bodies. This is not only happening here in Brighton; but all over the country.

    Quote from Coyote

    It is the place of authority to do exactly that where it threatens the cohesion of the community. Consent is not sufficient for something to be ok, and in some cases it isnt even necessary. This is the problem with individualism, it enshrines the individual and makes them out to be complete in themselves when they are not any such thing.

    Bullshit! It is authority that has destroyed so many communities; and also strives to keep us all apart. Individualism to is entrenched in our society; I fully understand that; what you seem to miss out as part of your analysis is how that came to be...

    Quote from Coyote

    However did we manage for all those centuries....

    Centuries ago teenage pregnancy or STI transmission were not seen as the problem as they are today, we are supposed to be living in a developed country not the Middle-fooking -Ages. Also are you seriously saying that you think while society has become so sexualised that we have been properly equipping our children to live in a such a society. Excuse me, but I am regarded as a freak by many parents for speaking so openly with my daughter about sex; this became evident during a meeting all parents in my daughters class was invited to attend so we could watch the sex ed film our children (aged 8) were due to watch... It was a very very basic introduction to differences between males/females and conception. Many parents were outraged when they saw the clip; the teacher agreed that it was a bit 'too informative'. Sorry but many of these children watch music videos that are more specialised than watching a five min' clip of a very basic cartoon of a naked male and female!!! As you say wisdom is not inherent but something that is taught :rolleyes:

    Quote from Coyote

    One moment they are arguing that society is over-run with child sex abuse (with child abuse not being known as an example of responsible behaviour) whilst the next moment arguing that society is responsible enough to be trusted with legal access to hard drugs. :S Is society not trustworthy (high levels of abuse) or trustworthy (wont misuse narcotics)? Which is it? Are they trustworthy or not? Except, of course, that the argument changes based upon the axe the speaker has to its untrustworthy when they are spreading their propaganda about abuse and trustworthy when they are spreading their propaganda about drugs. :insane:

    Are you trying to be deliberately insulting? Child abusers are just irresponsible? Wtf?? :screwy: so what should we do herd up all child abusers and make them learn responsibility. Come on who the fuck argues that.If it was just a lack of responsibility that caused child abuse to happen it would be pretty easy to sort out. Some people are just sexually attracted to children, it may be a result of a negative/positive childhood sexual experience. Also you have to remember there are cases of people who are sexually attracted to children seeking treatment without being cohered into it (I believe that is called taking responsibility). Also, I am sure there are many many contexts where both child abusers and drug users are trustworthy, one 'bad' point does not automatically make the whole person and every action they perform 'bad'. So how then, in the real world, does the choice to sexually abuse a child and recreationally take a drug become comparable? It doesn't... simples.

    Quote from Coyote

    The war on drugs doesnt work because it only deals with part of the problem. The solution to the problem is not a all-but-unconditional surrender on drugs.

    And how would this be accomplished?

    Quote from Coyote

    Why do you take drugs? What is it in particular about the narcotics you do take that is the reason you choose to take them?

    For the same reasons that many mammals consume fermented fruit, or psychoactive substances in their environment; its enjoyable; to me more so than drinking as I do suffer more after drinking (even a little bit these days).