d r u g s

[bassnation]

There is no conflation [Nomad made the claim that any critique of drugs was mere 'moralizing', rather than rational analysis]. And conflating that is precisely what you are doing here. We're discussing the drugs referred to in the ludicrous, pre-rigged 'poll' above; I don't recall any mention of alcohol there, and my position would be exactly the same if it had been so included. Finally, I never said anywhere that drugs were 'unacceptable' [that is your moralizing], I said that they were destructive. If you disagree with this, let's hear your arguments, as I've heard none whatsoever from anyone here on this issue, just an irrational clutching at straws.

And I would be quite happy to see drugs totally decriminalized, but that isn't what I was talking about.

ok, well i'm not responsible for the poll, and yes it was rigged (no option for none, forcing non-users to pick the ghb, k and other option).

but still, your idea on relabelling drug pushers as "purveyors of misery" (very daily mail) seems utterly black and white to me. not to state the bleeding obvious but all drugs are not the same. heroin and cocaine are maybe a different story, but as i've stated on this, and other threads drugs have not always been negative for me, particularly ecstasy which has made a lasting positive contribution to my life, the way i relate to people and a widening, not narrowing of possibilities even though i barely touch the stuff these days - and as an aside, maybe this is the correct way to approach drugs, learn something and then move on before it becomes a prison of non-possbilities.

i appreciate your position btw, which is more clear to me after your response.

 

[Mr. Tea]

There is no conflation [Nomad made the claim that any critique of drugs was mere 'moralizing', rather than rational analysis]

So calling drugs a "chemical death sentence" is 'rational', is it?

Watch out people, REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!111

 

[noel emits]

Life is a biological death sentence.

We should probably cut out our pituitary glands, lest we become dangerously anaesthetised opioid junkies.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Life is a biological death sentence.

That's, like, well deep, man.

*cof cof*

(D'you wanna finish it? I think there's a bit left...)

 

[noel emits]

That's, like, well deep, man.

I wouldn't really want to propose such a limiting belief.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I wouldn't really want to propose such a limiting belief.

Heh, yeah, I was only joking, hence my reply.

 

[swears]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7099138.stm

 

[noel emits]

Mmm, strawberry meth. Sounds delicious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7279002.stm

 

[Mr. Tea]

Looks like a bunch of grapes to me.

Edit: *reads article* haha, Morris-tastic.

 

[noel emits]

Looks like a bunch of grapes to me.

It's quirky marketing. The same logic by which raspberry Slush Puppies are blue and Big Apple records have a banana. Kids like that kind of thing apparently.

 

[zhao]

oh shit the spaced out threads are making a come back

 

[mos dan]

i think i've finally decided, after many years of debate (internal and external), that weed inhibits rather than helps me to work (i.e. writing). which is a shame, as i don't have the willpower to 'save it for the weekend'. solutions?

 

[noel emits]

Try combining it with a bit of strawberry meth? = energy boost + satisfied munchies.

 

[Grievous Angel]

Work first, smoke later. Simple!

 

[Gavin]

Work first, smoke later. Simple!

Yeah, this is what I do... turn it into your reward for a job well done (unless you have hangups about how this conforms to the dictates of late capitalism -- see earlier in this thread). I think I'm over being stoned all day (for the most part )

 

[mos dan]

Work first, smoke later. Simple!

it's less simple when you are freelance, work from home, and are fundamentally lazy. but i take your point! maybe i'll give a stricter regime a go - no ganj before midnight or something (i usually work late).