and yet legal in other countries???? gimme a f*cking break. just cause it's illegal here doesn't inherently make it bad. alcohol is completely legal, but it'll f*ck you up more than almost any other drug out there. i'm by no mean a "druggie," but i'll be damned if the governement can tell me what i can and can't put in my body in the privacy of my own home. i don't need anyone telling me what i should and shouldn't be doing to my own body. i know very succesful people that do all sorts of crap - all sorts of drugs. if you can't use drugs responsibly, then you shouldn't use them at all. but don't be so quick to judge all drug users. hopefully that made some sense....
Sorry but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Who are you to know what goes on with TheFreak's family life? Unless you live with his family, saying something like that because you found an article that supports such a far-out position that you have is really reaching there, andy. That would be like me finding some obscure article that says it is okay to be violent towards women (which I do NOT advocate, just coming up with an extreme example) and then telling people "see, this article I found - that makes it okay for me to be violent towards women."
I see where you are coming from and for the record, I don't care what people want to do with their own bodies. However, I DO CARE when you have characters like andymoon trying to tell me that it is okay "to just say maybe". I work out 4 times a week and have been doing that faithfully for close to 2 years. I don't take any supplements and I certainly don't take any steroids. I could if I wanted to but I would feel that would "cheapen" my accomplishments there. Whatever happened to doing things with what God gave you? Why is it that some people want to take the easy way out? And what does it matter if they are successful for them doing drugs? Is it like the old movies where people smoked all the time? Is it consider a "sign of prestige or status" to be a cocaine user? If it is, well, damn that is sad to me and it is little wonder why our society has gone to pot.
And I take it that you have?? LOL - like I said earlier, you found one obscure article that backs your view. Congratulations - do you want a gold star? I wouldn't be surprised if you were high when you did this thread. I am sorry but I should have never responded in this thread and just ignored it. Yes, I guess you can technically say that alcohol is not really a drug, but try telling that to my parents, andy, who had their childhoods destroyed by alcoholism. That would go over real well with my old man if I told him that according to you it is okay to "just say maybe".
I think that the point of the article is that a certain amount of drug experemtaion can be viewed as normal, and the experience can have positive effects (along with negative). Why is that so hard to beleive? To me it is obvious. Of course alcholol is a drug, but it is legal. That is the point. Some lives are destroyed by alcohol abuse, but others can handle it. Rght now my father is brewing another batch of ale for his homebrew kegorater. Freedom is a good thing, right?
It would make sense to you if you realized that I have decades of experience dealing with drug users and potential drug users. I know that I will be able to convince my son not to use drugs until adulthood because I am armed with the facts. The Freak has apparently bought into the propaganda and lies and as such his children have a 50/50 shot at using drugs before leaving high school. I did not say what I said because of the article, I said it because I know the truth. You seem to be assuming that I advocate young people using drugs and as such I can only assume that you have not read anything that I have written in this or several other threads. It is NOT OK for kids to use drugs, which is why we need to change our system.
I think maybe you totally missed a big point here.. Alcohol is a drug, and you can't say that it's not. It's a drug in every sense of the word. As a matter of fact, Andy himself said this just a few posts before yours, in response to you: Getting back to your "just say maybe" comment. I don't think that's what he's saying at all. In fact, I'm sure of it. I think he's saying that we should tell kids something like: You may want to experiment with drugs (including alcohol), but you can't do it until you're an adult. Here comes the important part: Here's why: There can be very serious consequences to drug and alcohol use and abuse. Here are some of the dangers: (Insert facts about addiction, impairment of judgement, facts about long-term harmful effects of overuse, adverse developmental effects for developing teenage brains, etc. here). This is why you can't try them until you're an adult. To me, this makes a hell of a lot more sense than "Just say no". Obviously that has been a tremendous success. Although I suppose I could be called naive for believing that, given the proper information, most kids would be smart enough to see the logic. (a safeguard here is that, if some drugs were legal, there would be strict penalties for selling to minors- not like the b.s. stuff we have now.) Think about it, society (especially when your parents were growing up, I'm guessing) really made cigarettes and alcohol out to be 'cool'. Look what happened with that. I'm betting that if previous generations would have been presented with facts about nicotine and alcohol, there'd be fewer alcoholics and addicted smokers. To weigh in with some of my views here: I think it's dumb that we allow the sale and use of nicotine and alcohol, while banning with extreme predjudice (using both laws and propaganda) other drugs that may be less harmful. I think it's stupid that we allow the makers of these drugs to advertise to kids (don't tell me this has changed- it still happens. Count up the number of beer commercials during sporting events). Maybe we need a billion dollar pot and coke lobby (I bet this is the surest way for them to be legalized). I think people are short sighted if they can't see that if drugs were legalized, the "illegal" drug trade (you know, the one where x people get murdered every day) would dry up- why would you buy a mysterious jar of 'alcohol' for $100 from some shady dude in an alley if you could run down to the corner store and pick up a six pack of good old mass market bud for $6? Not to mention the possibility that the 'alcohol' you'd be getting could be gasoline, rat poison, or water (or the fact that the guy might just shoot you and take your money). A bonus here is that the anti-drug education programs would be more than paid for (along with tons of money for general education, social security, or whatever) by the taxes on the regulated drugs that were sold. I think it's idiotic that we spend so much money on "the war on drugs", but meanwhile, the budget for anti drug education is so small that the anti drug info commercials are so bad, they make me want to go smoke a joint. Seriously, is any kid going to listen to these lame ads, when, right afterwards, a multi-million dollar bud lite commercial comes on with 2 hot chicks mud wrestling? No education=ignorance. We see signs of this on the board every day. Of course, when the prevailing attitude is one of hysteria, the "education" that kids get probably won't be too helpful. Reefer madness is the classic example here. There's a reason it is still given as a Christmas gift, and it's not because it's a powerfully insightful documentary. I think the point is that there's an obvious element of hipocrisy in a society that allows use (and rampant advertising of- especially to minors during things like sports telecasts) of alcohol and tobacco-nicotine is also a highly addicitive drug. As an aside, it annoys me when people say "drugs and alcohol". Alcohol is a drug. In every sense of the word.
Jebus, Good post. For the record, I was under the impression that we were only talking about "illegal drugs". You can obviously go out and purchase alcoholic beverages when you reach 21 (and sometimes even younger due to places not checking or fake IDs), so I thought alcohol was excluded from this discussion. But yea, I obviously agree with you that drugs and alcohol is dumb to say because alcohol is a drug.
It is absolutely OK for ADULTS to "just say maybe" as the article puts it, and if you really don't care what someone else does with their body then you should jump on and advocate for the end of prohibition. If you misstated there then you must feel it is OK for the government to tell adults what to do with their bodies. Which is it? Good for you. You made your choice regarding what chemicals you want to put in your body just as every other adult should have the right to make the same choice. mar1juana - Provided by God. Coca - Provided by God. Poppy - Provided by God. God gave us these plants to do with as we see fit (if you believe the Bible) and yet men are trying to criminalize them. It really doesn't matter WHY some people use drugs (including alcohol), what matters is that we treat ALL adults like adults by giving them control over their bodies. It matters because the VAST majority of drug users are responsible adults. Why should all adults be treated as children when it is between 2 and 4% of them that actually cause problems? Out society has "gone to pot" as you put it because of prohibition, not because of drugs.
Sorry but have to agree to disagree here. The terms "drug user" and "responsibility" are two that I cannot put together.
Then you need to get out more. I'm typing from the home of two of them. One runs a successful consulting firm and the other just got a promotion and a raise at her job. Two people that have put off buying new cars until they had the money to pay for them at once, which they do now. Of course, I live with one who's about to become a partner in a civil engineering firm. One who refuses to date until he takes care of all his student and business loans. Oh, the horror of mar1juana use.
I can back everything I say with evidence and facts. You are coming up with statements that could have come straight off the ONDCP website. EVERY STUDY THAT HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF DRUG POLICY HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE DIRECTION WE ARE HEADED IS NOT THE BEST ONE. If you would like me to cite them, there is a list I cited in a thread months ago that I would be happy to repost. You will not find a study (that hasn't been debunked) to the contrary because they don't exist. All the actual evidence we have points to prohibition being the worst thing we could do to address this problem. Typical prohibitionist. When the facts don't agree with you, just impugne the source by suggesting that they are "on drugs" and therefore not worth listening to. What a moron. You would have come off as much more informed about this subject if you had ignored it, that is for sure. Obviously there are some people that cannot use drugs (including alcohol) successfully. The point is that prohibition is not the best way to deal with this issue. The VAST majority of Americans CAN "just say maybe" and not develop problems. Your parent's biology regarding alcohol does not support prohibiting alcohol any more than the small percentage of drug users who become addicted supports the war on drugs.
I love how you have drawn the conclusion that I am a "prohibitionist" when I have never said such a thing. All I said was that alcohol destroyed my parents' childhoods. Idiot.
In that case you are deliberately inoring the facts in favor of believing the line of bull you have been fed. Millions of Americans use drugs every day and yet somehow they are able to hold down jobs, pay their taxes, and act as responsible members of society. Those should be the things that count in the measure of a wo/man as opposed to their choice of intoxicants.
BTW, Manny, I just reread my post and realized I didn't backspace through my "moron" comment like I usually do. I apologize, the only excuse I have is sleep deprivation.
Guys, stop the name-calling. I am pretty sure that andymoon has not smoked a joint before posting because he does seem kinda tense .
So are you saying that being against anything makes you a prohibitionist? Like I am against gun control (believe it or not), does that make me a prohibitionist? "2 entries found for prohibition. To select an entry, click on it. prohibitionwrit of prohibition Main Entry: pro·hi·bi·tion Pronunciation: "prO-&-'bi-sh&n also "prO-h&- Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 : the act of prohibiting by authority 2 : an order to restrain or stop 3 often capitalized : the forbidding by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for medicinal and sacramental purposes." I am asking because I want to try to understand if that is indeed the terminology now. And I guess this topic is a little sensitive to me, but I accept your apology and I am sorry for calling you an "idiot". I admit that I didn't give you much of a chance, but you have stamina and believe in your position, so that should count for something.
I think it might be best if you did repost the list, otherwise people can wave their hands and say "sure, you say you have sources, where are they?" besides, I'm interested in checking it out myself. This illustrates an important bias- the addicts are the only visible population here. People are hesitant to stand up and say "I use drugs recreationally, and I'm ok." (Kudos to some in this thread for doing so, by the way). Since there's no way to know how many people do recreationally use drugs and manage it fine, all we have is a massively skewed sample of addicts. So people who don't use drugs can bury their heads in the sand and say "everyone I've heard of who tries drugs gets addicted". I suspect that these people would be surprised if they knew what percentage of people had tried drugs (or even continue recreational use) and are not addicted. It's not necessarily something to condemn them for. Take the case of Manny here. If one hears gov't statistics and scare tactics used in "the war on drugs" over and over for years, then one guy who they don't know at all comes along on a message board and says "maybe drugs aren't so bad", who do you expect them to side with? Now add in the fact that the two biggest figures in their life have been affected by addiction, and it gets even worse. This is why the government scare tactics work so well. They can prey on people who have experience with someone with addiction and say "look- this is what happens to everyone who uses drugs!" If they don't have any experience to the contrary, why wouldn't they believe it? they're going to listen to some anonymous dude on a message board? I'm not saying it's right, just chill for a second and maybe try and see the other side here.
