Sorry, but I don't know which part you would like me to answer, I thought I did it well, could you point out to me which part you would like me to examine more, that way I can respond properly? Thanks.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Legalize it. ALL of it.
- Thread starter DM
- Start date
Sorry, but I don't know which part you would like me to answer, I thought I did it well, could you point out to me which part you would like me to examine more, that way I can respond properly? Thanks.
Kind of necessary, ok, REALLY necessary.
This one could probably be gotten over with, you could distract yourself by posting on Smogon, going out and exercising, spending time with family, etc. Banning the TV would not be necessary if the addiction is overcome. Let me think on this more.
necessary
I have some of these too. Reading is a great help, doing anything else you enjoy help's you get off the computer. But I'm guessing it's because you have what seems like alot of free time, right?
As long as you find ways to do your homework in there (or work if you are an adult), I don't see any problems with these. Would you be able to live without your mobile phone for a month? Probably. I think you might enjoy other things, like your books, even more.
An addiction is where you can't really give something up, where you are mentally dependent on it. Some things are just used to fill time, you aren't really dependent on them. But I dunno, I may have missed your point entirely.
It's the same justification for playing sports, playing video games, or eating unhealthy foods: if hallucinogens are fun to do and there's no reason to not do them, then yes, there is justification for using them. And I don't think there is any way for you to say that they are harmful; they have no risk of dependence, they have no risk of overdose, and the potential for any long term mental problems is minimal unless the user pretty much tries to get into a situation where they can be harmful.
If you want to talk about addictions being something that you arementally dependent on, you're excluding a pretty large subset of drugs, namely the hallucinogens/pot, and many other drugs can be used without developing an addiction. You could go so far as to say that it is possible to do nearly any drug without developing an addiction to it, as long as you do it responsibly and in moderation, which is not impossible or even uncommon.
if thought is not a black and white process, how, pray tell, can you deduce how people will act?
is there justification to ban them? people take them willingly, and of their own free will. theres no reason to keep people from using them if they so want.
and again, who says they are addicted? and caffeine is by far the easiest, cheapest, and easily accessibel form of staying awake.
please, thats such a small minority of people on painkillers that it borders on evenbeing a valid argument.
okay, so youre asking us to give reasons as to why we do not believe in the "logic" of your conjecture? we actually know people who do drugs, and we know their reasoning behind their decision. therefore, we know why people do and dont do drugs. most people do drugs because we like how we feel when we are high, regardless of legality. we also know people who decide not to do drugs, and we know the reasoning behind their decision isnt because theyre illegal. we have actual experience with this.
you on the otherhand, seem to get all your "experience" from anti drug commercials that always show worst case scenarios.
I'm not really sure if this works, but I'll try to logically "prove" that legalizing drugs leads to increased use. Of course, I'm just assuming that the bans are lifted and nothing else, because obviously we can't tell what would happen if we used the saved money for drug education.
1. Illegality is a sole deterrent for some.
2. Legality is not a deterrent.
3. By legalizing, you are removing a deterrant while not adding a deterrent.
4. With a removed deterrent, some people will no longer have a reason to not use a drug, while nobody will gain a reason to not use a drug without adding a deterrant.
5. Therefore, legalizing increases drug use.
Note: I do believe in legalizing some drugs (though not all, all at once), though I've already established that in this thread.
1. Illegality is a sole deterrent for some.
2. Legality is not a deterrent.
3. By legalizing, you are removing a deterrant while not adding a deterrent.
4. With a removed deterrent, some people will no longer have a reason to not use a drug, while nobody will gain a reason to not use a drug without adding a deterrant.
5. Therefore, legalizing increases drug use.
Note: I do believe in legalizing some drugs (though not all, all at once), though I've already established that in this thread.
You're correct that nobody knows what would've happened, however what we do know is that someone in an altered state (be it high, drunk, fucked up on pills, half asleep, whatever) is less safe on the road.
As for pot not doing anything to your judgment, only your perception: you can't play cards properly (mostly) with half the deck missing.
if one is aware of their impairment, it is much easier to ask someone else to drive as they know they are not fit.
drunks, on the other hand, are usually too stubborn to ask for help, pr to drunk too know how drunk they are.
Let me rephrase that. Is there medical justification for using it?
It's a fact that some drugs are more addciting than others. It's also a fact that certain people are better at resisting it than others. How willl we tell before they take the drug that they are going to not be addicted?
We can't, that's the point. Notice how I said how you were trying to make me use a proof to show evidence for my point. Also note that not all people think in exactly the same way, so it is reasonable to think some people will think that way.
Do they become mentally dependent on them? Considering it's not your family (who your supposed to be mentally dependent on).
Nobody knows if they are addicted. There are other ways of staying awake not much harder to use then caffeine. They tend to be sort of situational to the person however.
Exactly, it's the small percentage of people that are the exception. Also, the borderline would be "would their mind be in a worse state under the extreme pain, or the drug?". That is what really makes the difference. Also note that this reaches into the "grey area". It's not black and white.
If drugs become "ok", will more people take them? Because that's what legalizing is.
That may be right. I don't know.
Why is sex essential? I don't fuck to procreate, I fuck because I feel like getting laid, quite bluntly. You did completely miss my point.
Having casual sex increases my risk of various STIs (I'm generally careful but there are slip-ups from time to time; not to mention condoms aren't infallible as they both break and don't prevent some STIs anyway) and cervical cancer. I suppose you suggest I keep my legs firmly crossed from now on. Always. Until I find someone I want to marry. Who won't cheat on me. Ever.
You're an absolute retard. Would I be able to live without what I am most obviously addicted to - nicotine? Absolutely. I've done it before I smoked, I've quit before, but I do it because I enjoy it. When I stop enjoying it, I'll quit.
Cups of tea. Surprisingly, they have caffiene in them. You're suggesting I take the decaf version (which I had to briefly switch to to see if it made a difference to my anxiety/insomnia - it didn't) which quite frankly tastes like cabbage. And I don't like cabbage. But yes, you're suggesting I switch to the inferior tasting version because of the presence of a non-health-damaging agent that is mildly addicting and greatly enhances my mood and productivity? Um. Okay. Same argument goes for coffee - try finding a decaf version of fine coffee that doesn't taste like shit. You won't.
My pain medication you didn't even bother to address. Needless to say I'll keep loading myself with mefenaic acid and codiene when it comes to that time of the month, unless you'd rather I put up with frankly intolerable excruciating pain as opposed to a dull ache.
You're a poor troll, sir. And if you're not a troll, then christ almighty please remove yourself from the gene pool by whatever means necessary.
Oh, and if it's medical justification you're looking for, then smoking pot is absolutely fine for me because it helps me sleep. Sorted!
This would be what I would suggest... what else would I suggest?
Do you enjoy the nicatine, or enjoy the smoking? It's one or the other.
I think your misinterpreting things - you enjoy the caffinated coffee and tea more. Why? Because the caffeine releases dopamine that make you feel happy, and then later, crash.
I did mention it - obviously, to save yourself from being driven insane (you call the pain "intolerable"), you need it, right. It's an exception. It's the grey section.
I didn't think I was trolling... but if you say so... why do you think I am trolling? I'm sorry if you view me as trolling, I'm trying to help, yet show my opinion at the same time. =(
There are other just as good ways to make you sleep. There is even natural food out there that contains substances that make you sleepy. That also may help you get up a bit easier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogicRelictivity said:
Go read this and never try to discuss "logic" with us again until you finish reading this page and the linked pages.
Is there medical justification for doing everything you do? Why is medical justification necessary for doing something fun that doesn't immediately endanger yourself? For the substances we're talking about, there isn't even the argument that you should let the user harm themselves, because there isn't even harm involved.
It falls under "Deductive and Inductive Reasoning".
@Jenigmat - Sure there is harm involved in alcohol, and other drugs. Things less extreme tend to enter the "gray zone", where things can possibly go either way.
@Akuchi - Where are you getting this? I did not even say such things, I said the exact opposite. Literally, that is going too far. You seem to go out of the way to say that I'm supporting things I am clearly not. Where are you getting this?
Will you look at what I've stated before, because it literally does not match what you are saying.
No, it is not a question of what the psychiatrist sticks you on, it's a question on what is the least addicting thing that they can put you on that will work. Besides, I don't have the qualifications to say what your psychiatrisct says will work. If she says you need to take caffeine because nothing else works, then that is medically necessary, right?
I'm not trying to be selfish or authoritarian, and I don't belive my arguments are stupid. I want to understand why you dislike what I am saying. I am saying avoid addictions when possible. What is wrong with that? If I am giving you an emotional breakdown, don't respond, it will only make things worse - I don't like people feeling bad at all.
She doesn't say I need to take caffiene, she tells me to take a magical cocktail of headfuckery that mean I don't even wake up until 6pm most days (and I'm in bed again by 9).. this after a different psych telling me to take a magical cocktail of headfuckery that I'm pretty sure gave me bipolar I (I certainly never had mania like this prior to taking the shit).
You are being ridiculous. Saying I shouldn't drink coffee because of addictive potential?
You are being ridiculous. Saying I shouldn't drink coffee because of addictive potential?
It's a medicine that makes you sleep easier, right? Then, you end up sleeping in, right?
That is what I'm saying though. It doesn't seem ridiculous to me.
I'm going to retire from the thread for a few hours, ok, hope you do not mind.
The main problem seems like Relec is too young and sheltered to even get what you're going through. I'd hesitate to call it being ridiculous though, cause leading the "safe" kind of lifestyle can work well for people, but if you're old and mature enough to know what you, yourself wants, then why the fuck shouldnt you be entitled to make your own decisions?
No, it's not a medicine that makes me sleep easier - it's a stunning combination of an extremely sedating antidepressant and sleeping pills on top of that, since the antidepressant stops *putting* you to sleep at the higher doses (which naturally I'm on) but vastly improves the quality of your sleep, so they dose me up with additional sleeping pills, which quite often don't really work, so once I finally get to sleep I spent a hell of a lot of time asleep and wakeup with a hangover (you get them from meds as well as booze - and I know which one I prefer). That is, until someone sees fit to tweak the dose, change a pill or drop something else in there, then all hell really does break loose.
Alternately I could just, you know, take a few hits off a spliff and drift off to sleep twenty minutes later warm, giggly and content. But I hear that's bad.
Alternately I could just, you know, take a few hits off a spliff and drift off to sleep twenty minutes later warm, giggly and content. But I hear that's bad.
I have no idea where the argument is, but I will say this...
Addiction ≠ drugs.
Reason being? Addiction is possible for ANYTHING you find pleasurable, with or without undesirable side effects; even legal/encouraged activities, such as:
Addiction ≠ drugs.
Reason being? Addiction is possible for ANYTHING you find pleasurable, with or without undesirable side effects; even legal/encouraged activities, such as:
- Work.
- Sex/Porn.
- Junk food (both in general AND specifics such as "choco-holics").
- Exercise.