Print

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

[weenog]

Lack of sleep can do that with no chemical help at all.  You want to enforce bedtime, too?

I think it's wrong to take away individuals' rights to choose because of what might happen.

Just like how we let people drunk drive, because it would be wrong to take away their right to choose to do so because of what might happen?

Not impressed.  The law being what it is right now doesn't mean it's right.  Besides, that's more of a public roads use issue than a personal alcohol use issue.  And the penalties for mauling or killing somebody with an automobile should be stiffer, whether or not the driver was drunk at the time.

[GlyphGryph]

f) Drugs are toxins.  They alter your tate of mind by posioning your cells or otherwise inhibiting your ability.

Epinephrine. Endorphins. Estrogen. Steroids. Anti-inflammatories. Antibiotics. Antivirals. Painkillers. Decongestants and cough suppressants. Lithium and other anti-depressents. Anti-psychotics. Stimulants.

Not all drugs are toxins. Not all toxins are bad for you. Not all drugs alter your state of mind, and many of those that do don't do so by poisoning your cells. Many enhance your abilities, rather than inhibiting them (there is a reason the US Airforce mandates drug use and drops those who can't handle the drugs pilots are expected to take). Others alleviate inhibitions that you may be operating under for other reasons, such as pseudoephedrine or aspirin.

Your statement is factually wrong on pretty much every single possible level.

I am impressed, good job.

Here is a similar statement that happens to be factually correct. I'm afraid it does lose some of the impact, though:

f) (Some) drugs are toxins (at certain levels).  (Some of them) (may) alter your state of mind, (and some of those may do so) by (causing temporary or permanent damage to) your cells. (Some drugs) (may also) inhibit your ability (to perform certain tasks).

[pisskop]

Really?  And which drug are we refering to?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intoxicate

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/

You should be impressed.  Any drug where the side effects are possible death is enough of a toxin to me.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/cocaine/cocaine_effects.shtml

[GlyphGryph]

Morphine, Cocaine, Water, Aspirin, all of these chemicals have toxic levels. Many "drugs" do not, or at least they don't have toxic levels that can be reached without seemingly committed intent.

"(That is) enough of a toxin for me."

Finish the thought? Enough for you what?

To dismiss all drugs as bad? As worthless? As undesirable? To enforce banning them completely? To encourage people to use them responsibly?

So far you've made a trivially false general statement, and a followup that amounts to little more than a confusing mess of an argument that tapers off before it gets to a point and is composed mostly of links that fail to provide any illumination of what you're trying to say.

I am confused.

Even if we just limit it to the psychoactives, as mentioned in the OP, many of those still serve medical uses, some are about as non-toxic as you can get, and it still leaves your posts missing an actual point.

[pisskop]

I merely stated an opinion.  I did not wish to debate it.  When you called me out I simply let you see a sample of where I get my information.

[GlyphGryph]

What you stated wasn't an opinion. If you'd stated an opinion, I wouldn't have felt the need to call you out on it (plenty of people have stated anti-drug opinions so far, after all). What you stated was either a mistake (and thus an opportunity to educate) or a lie (and attempt to push an agenda). It seems it was the second, so it's understandable why you don't wish to "debate it" or even "defend it".

You're entitled to your own opinions. You aren't entitled to your own facts.

[lordcooper]

An opinion that someone cannot adequately defend should be altered.  Unless you're religious, I guess

[pisskop]

My position is laid out.  I think it is plain and doesnt need any more elaboration, despite any 'flaws' you claim to see.

[lordcooper]

Drugs are just bad, m'kay.

[pisskop]

Because they intoxiciate and impair ones ability.

[GlyphGryph]

Even the ones that enhance your abilities.

[pisskop]

Should athletes take 'enhancing' drugs?

oh, you are correct.

Because they intoxiciate and impair alter ones ability.

[scrdest]

Even the ones that enhance your abilities.

Waaaait a second, we have nootropics and no-one told me? Goddammit, and I thought 'Limitless' was pure fiction. </beasarcasticasshat>

[GlyphGryph]

Uhm... yes? Yes, we have nootropics? Even sarcastic people know that!

(Unfortunately, sadly, nowhere near the level they showed in Limitless... though with the same level of side effects, often enough. ::shudder:: )

But seriously I think like a third of my floor in college was hooked on nootropics of one sort of another. And how else am I going to learn my skills in Cataclysm without those delicious intelligence-boosting cocktails?

Oddly enough, cannabis is considered a nootropic under certain conditions. It can actually greatly boost memory function.

[scrdest]

Uhm... yes? Yes, we have nootropics? Even sarcastic people know that!

(Unfortunately, sadly, nowhere near the level they showed in Limitless... though with the same level of side effects, often enough. ::shudder:: )

But seriously I think like a third of my floor in college was hooked on nootropics of one sort of another. And how else am I going to learn my skills in Cataclysm without those delicious intelligence-boosting cocktails?

Meeeh, I don't mean those faux-nootropics that tend to punch you in the brain when you don't suspect them to to avenge their brain-boosting slavery to humanity.

From completely unrelated news, I am going to self-banish from participating in any discussions until tomorrow, I'm tired and I'm starting to be unfit for talking half-rationally. G'night.