Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

I would like to mention that the thing I said (about interacting with people who are different from you) is a lot more important if you use the Internet, because the Internet offers extreme amounts of freedom of association. This means you can interact with whoever you want, but also avoid people easily, which results in lots of echo-chamber communities of suspiciously like-minded people. It's easy in that kind of environment to forget what it's actually like to know or befriend people who don't quite think or live the way you do.

[Hanslanda]

I would be happy to see most drugs decriminalized just to get the pushers off the streets. I mean, how can you make a profit growing and selling pot when you have to contend with Phillip-Morris or RJ Reynolds?

Exactly. 'Hmm, pay Lazy-Eye Larry four hundred bucks, or Wal-Mart forty? TO WAL-MART!'

I would like to mention that the thing I said (about interacting with people who are different from you) is a lot more important if you use the Internet, because the Internet offers extreme amounts of freedom of association. This means you can interact with whoever you want, but also avoid people easily, which results in lots of echo-chamber communities of suspiciously like-minded people. It's easy in that kind of environment to forget what it's actually like to know or befriend people who don't quite think or live the way you do.

Facebook won't let you post 'disruptive' comments that disagree with people's posts/statuses now, I guess. (I don't use Facebook, it is evil ) This only amplifies the echo chamber effect.

[MaximumZero]

I would be happy to see most drugs decriminalized just to get the pushers off the streets. I mean, how can you make a profit growing and selling pot when you have to contend with Phillip-Morris or RJ Reynolds?

Exactly. 'Hmm, pay Lazy-Eye Larry four hundred bucks, or Wal-Mart forty? TO WAL-MART!'

Damn skippy.

I see no reason that a person shouldn't be able to go into a place like walgreen's, get a little brown baggie from the pharmacy, pick up a bag of doritos and a box of swiss cake rolls, go home, and get baked without having to worry about their stuff being cut with harmful substances, hallucinogens, or other drugs without their knowledge.

[i2amroy]

I agree with everybody here that people do drugs and there isn't much we can do about that, so I agree that we should legalize it for them. What I do have a problem with is the hordes of younger people that are being given drugs when they fail to fully understand the consequences. After all, if someone has only lived for 15 years (maybe 2/3rds of which they remember, so it's more like 10 actual years) it is sort of hard for them to comprehend the 60-100 year period of lifetime. Most teens I know still think in terms of weeks or months for goodness sakes, how can they be expected to comprehend causes and effects that take years before they show anything when they can't even comprehend the fact that they are failing their classes because they didn't do their homework four weeks ago (many of the younger adults I know still don't think in years for causes and effects). So I'd welcome the legalization of everything from LSD to cocaine, but the ages need to be a lot higher then alcohol or cigarettes are, and there has to be a corresponding crack down on people giving them to underage people because they can't know what they are doing. It's no different then trapping somebody who can't read in a contract or arresting somebody without reading them their rights, if they don't fully understand what they are agreeing to then they have no right to agree to it in my mind.

Spoiler: Living forever discussion (click to show/hide)

While pondering this dilemma, I came to a startling conclusion. As people have longer lives, they would become more hedonistic, not less. Nowadays, vast resources are dedicated to how people remember you. Monuments, huge donations, etc. When no one is looking forward to death, or trying to live a good life (I've got 2500 years to become a better person!), everyone will likely go nuts. Expect to see billionaire 130 year olds trying to pick up 19 year old girls in bars.

Of course you have to take in effect the fact that people would be less likely to do stupid things that get themselves killed. After all, if we take the maximum age of a person to be something like 10,000 years, then the murder of somebody who was only 100 years old would be similar to the murder of a 10 year old respectively.

Living forever would fucking suck, pardon the language. And I have one question for you. What if you don't make the cut off?

Then I die I guess, without having lived my life to the fullest enjoyment possible. Of course as it is with what I know of the world it would be almost impossible for me to live life to the extend that I want to, there will always be something more that "I wish I would have done" before death took me. I know that regardless of how well I do in life I will probably never get to stand on the top of Everest, I will never get to stand at the south pole and say "I am at the bottom of the world", I will never have the years required to study on the banks of the Ganges River, I will never be able to travel to the moon, or mars; I will never be able to wake up and look out the porthole of the international space station at the earth floating os far below me, I will never walk the Great Wall of China. Sure I might be able to accomplish some, maybe even most of it before I die, but there will always be something out there that I want to do but haven't done. And with the knowledge that I have of the various technologies in existence today, I am willing to wager 90 years of doing what I want for the thousands of years I could have.

And would it suck so much to live forever? After all it's not that everyone you know is dying, since they are living forever too. It's not that life is hard to live or tiring physically, because as science advances we should reach the point where we can give you the body you have now or in the "prime" of your life, probably one even better (gene therapy and similar treatments have already been used to cure genetic problems and failing muscles, joints, and organs in primates, is it so far of a leap to apply that treatment to humans?). So you suffered trauma in your life? Well you now have thousands of years to get over your problems and move on, for medicine has shown that time heals all emotional and mental trauma given long enough. The only real problem I see is boredom, and society has reached the point at this time where content is being created faster then you can absorb it (I know at least two fanfiction sites where they are gaining over 150 words per second on average), and as you are you physically can not absorb information as fast as it is being created, and should you change physically to be able to do so it is only fair to assume that the content creators will speed up as well. That basically covers all of the reasons listed on tvtropes' "Who wants to live forever" page, so if you have some other reason why living forever would be so horrible feel free to point it out. I don't see any right now though.

[G-Flex]

Facebook won't let you post 'disruptive' comments that disagree with people's posts/statuses now, I guess. (I don't use Facebook, it is evil ) This only amplifies the echo chamber effect.

Huh? I need a source for this. That wouldn't be necessary anyway, since users can delete comments on their stuff.

[Skyrunner]

Spoiler: Living forever (click to show/hide)

I'd like to live forever, with the caveat that I can choose to die. I'm rather terrified at the idea of death >.> Maybe I'll get over it eventually. I suppose.

Sometimes I think that drug legalization would be great for solving problems, and sometimes I think it'd be the worse thing since tobacco.

I can see some pros: out-compete black market people and drive them out of business, being able to have accurate statistics on drug usage, perhaps being able to keep teens out of drugs, solving many of the problems that cause drug-related crimes.

If the local Evergreen sells LSD, unadultered or safely so (with compounds that don't affect your health negatively), and it's affordable to the average pedestrian, few would go to the shady, expensive, and perhaps dangerously cut black market dealer. Also, the dangers of LSD can be printed on each container so the average user knows to not operate heavy machinery, don't take it while distressed, and ... others. Another idea would be that people would go to official clinics of some sort and take the drug in a safe environment.
Also, government officials could have reliable statistics and be able to plan accordingly.

On the other hand, there are cons: more easily accessible => more users, look at the drunken driver accidents then multiply it by each drug that addles your heavy machinery operating abilities, lobbiers will lobby for advertising to be legalized, drawing more people into the drug, the idea that it's legal might give potential users' morality a break.

Also, it's probably going to be hard for legalization to happen, because of conservative political groups, religious groups, and probably a bunch of anti-drug groups that will pop up anew.

[i2amroy]

Also, it's probably going to be hard for legalization to happen, because of conservative political groups, religious groups, and probably a bunch of anti-drug groups that will pop up anew.

Tell that to the government in my state, with Az being one of the 18 states that have followed in California's footsteps and passed medical marijuana laws (making 19 total with CA and 20 if you count Washington D.C. the capital). Of course the really funny thing is that technically marijuana is illegal according to federal law, so federal prosecutors can bust anybody selling or possessing marijuana (which makes the fact the D.C., which is mostly federal law already, passing a law to allow it doubly hilarious). Basically the fact that all of the law enforcement in the various states wouldn't support federal busts (since they probably voted to pass the law too) means that the fed's aren't that interested in cracking down on medical marijuana users in the states that legalized it, but the whole thing has sort of a "screw you" attitude from the states to the federal government, with the federal technically taking precedence over the state ones but nobody actually doing anything about it.

[Skyrunner]

Eh, thinking more of Korea. Conservative to the last atom. :S
Usually, conservative parties win the presidential election. I think out of the last ten elections, some 8 of them were conservative.

[scriver]

I see no reason that a person shouldn't be able to go into a place like walgreen's, get a little brown baggie from the pharmacy, pick up a bag of doritos and a box of swiss cake rolls, go home, and get baked without having to worry about their stuff being cut with harmful substances, hallucinogens, or other drugs without their knowledge.

Which is why I'd prefer it legalised under a government monopoly. Like alcohol is in Sweden (with a few exceptions), or pharmaceutics used to be until 4-6 something years ago (and yes, privatising the pharmacy business immediately led to lower standards on both product handling and user safety, as well as customer service). This is the safest, if not only way, to make sure profit-minded companies don't lace your joints and pills with addictives to enhance those profits, like they do with cigarettes. Of course, in cases like Russia, I'd much rather see people hooked on Corp-Pill or cheap Wal-Mart heroin than the krokodil they're taking now. Really, anything is better than krokodil.

I also believe we have to spend more on social program (a lot more in America's case ) for addicts, be it education or re-hab or other things that'll make it easier to stop using if you want it. Especially, though, psychological therapy. So many people turn to drugs for escapist purposes (if there even are other reasons for heavy drug use), and these are the ones that need help the most, and dealing with the issues they want to escape from is certainly better both from a personal and societal perspective than the person just continually running from them through drugs.

And the one time the doc gave me antidepressents, they made me feel like an inhuman sociopath. I felt like everything was just gone. Nothing. No feeling, no fear, not a damn thing. It was pretty fucking scary.

There's this common misconception that antidepps are supposed to be some kind of happy pill and give you ups (or, well, make you happy); they're not. They're just supposed to make you less sad, even out your mood. This is because the downs are directly incapacitating (sucking all the will and energy and hope out) and will effectively or disrupt ongoing therapy by making you feel like it's pointless (bringing you back to square one), make you give up, or even make you unable to start therapy to begin with. The purpose of the antidepp is thus to, by countering the downs, just give you enough energy to start the therapy, and when the therapy itself gives results you can seize or lessen the dose. It's supposed to be a crutch to help you move around until you can start using your own two legs.

The issue, I believe, is that some anti depressants are basically somewhat anti-feeling, meaning that while you do feel less about the downs you'll also feel less from the ups, and this can hit you quite harshly with hard medication. It might sound counter-intuitive, and you have to ask yourself if no-feel is better than most-likely-down-feel. When it comes to keeping heavily depressed people from feeling completely hopeless, worthless, listless, and like death is the only way out, I definitely feel that making them feel less in general is an advantage.

[Scoops Novel]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Immortality. On the one hand, too, too many things i want to see before i die. Another planet, first contact, safe jetpacks, simply how far we get and of course love. Whether I'd want to live through the middle is another question. However, whether i should live through the middle is a better question. As an atheist, i don't know what happens when we die. It might simply be an end, there might be the distinctly smaller chances of retaining consciousness as part of the universe or "heaven", we might even find a way to transfer consciousness and make heavens of our own upon death, Eldar style, i don't know. Nevertheless, since i don't know, living for as long as possible, and enjoying it as much as i can are two fairly attractive possibility's, leaning towards enjoyment. Whether you should hinges on much else, and will always be the key question. It's very unlikely that we'll attain immortality in our lifespan, and if we manage it to extend it by 50 or so years in livable health I'll be happy. So long as you can live, you can think, and so long as you can think, it's possible to find something to be happy about.

I'm glad there's a thread like this. I'm in the UK, where yes, much of the youth does do drugs, but as far as i can tell the majority not the hard stuff. Amongst my circle of friends it's weed. I dislike it, like quite a few things the youth does, but i put up with it, mainly on the basis they're not idiots when it comes to using to it, hopefully on the whole, and don't seem to be suffering adverse reactions. I doubt i could get them to stop if i tried, and I've tried on much else.

GombaGeek, i wouldn't dismiss everyone who ever tries drugs. If they ever go beyond saying "do you want to try some", and wont listen when you say no, and refuse to apologize when they're not high, they can go fuck themselves. If you do get the chance to dissuade them and it seems they'll listen, or if they're fucking their life up, act. The same, personally, goes for cocaine and the like. If these people are your age, i would ingratiate myself, find out whoever's dealing it to them, and have them arrested. 13 is too young to have any idea what you're doing with drugs.

However, people you know are most likely going to take drugs, and there's an order of magnitude higher likelihood that you're going to be forced to interact with people you don't who do the same. I would advise to judge each case individually, and if it's too much, for you or them, leave them be. I understand if, much like frumple, you hate seeing peopole doing this to themselves. I don't much like it either, but the same things going to happen to you with smokers and probably drinkers, and you're going to have to put up with it. Do what you can, and leave well alone where you cant.

[Yoink]

It'd be funnier if they were selling viagra or similiar, in this thread.
Damnit spambot, why you no have sense of humour?!

[scriver]

Hey now, gambling can be a serious addiction too

[penguinofhonor]

I didn't think I'd ever take drugs when I was 13 either. Ha, that didn't work out.

[Funk]

i support legalization of most drugs.
drugs should still be controled based the relative negative effects, dependence and harm.

low risk drugs like cannabis being sold like tobacco or alcohol.

other more risky but basicy safe drugs being on a prescription bases.

hard drugs i.e. opioids being on a prescription bases for maintenance.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

id best let you know that cannabis realy is a gateway drug,with in 1 min id moveing on to alcohol

[Hanslanda]

@ iamroy: http://www.cracked.com/article_18708_5-reasons-immortality-would-be-worse-than-death_p2.html 
I find these to be some pretty compelling reasons.



And I agree that if drugs were legalized, taxed (heavily) and regulated, then that'd be... Good I guess. For some of them. LSD, mushrooms, marijuana. The other, harder drugs should be prescription only, or perhaps a clinical type thing, as stated before.

And the one time the doc gave me antidepressents, they made me feel like an inhuman sociopath. I felt like everything was just gone. Nothing. No feeling, no fear, not a damn thing. It was pretty fucking scary.

There's this common misconception that antidepps are supposed to be some kind of happy pill and give you ups (or, well, make you happy); they're not. They're just supposed to make you less sad, even out your mood. This is because the downs are directly incapacitating (sucking all the will and energy and hope out) and will effectively or disrupt ongoing therapy by making you feel like it's pointless (bringing you back to square one), make you give up, or even make you unable to start therapy to begin with. The purpose of the antidepp is thus to, by countering the downs, just give you enough energy to start the therapy, and when the therapy itself gives results you can seize or lessen the dose. It's supposed to be a crutch to help you move around until you can start using your own two legs.

The issue, I believe, is that some anti depressants are basically somewhat anti-feeling, meaning that while you do feel less about the downs you'll also feel less from the ups, and this can hit you quite harshly with hard medication. It might sound counter-intuitive, and you have to ask yourself if no-feel is better than most-likely-down-feel. When it comes to keeping heavily depressed people from feeling completely hopeless, worthless, listless, and like death is the only way out, I definitely feel that making them feel less in general is an advantage.

See, I realized the 'happy pills' thing from that incident I referenced. I thought being depressed wasn't normal. Well, being unhappy sometimes is pretty normal actually. You have to have the full range of emotions to be healthy. Being happy all the time is just as bad for you as being sad all the time.
And therapy was basically not an option, so I'm glad I didn't continue taking the antidepressents.