What do you say to somone who says drug are "fake feelings"

[TheBlackPope]

Originally Posted by vantranist

Perferibly in words that a Teenager would understand?

I know why i think its not a valid argument but i cant find the right way to express it.

Man, why do you care about what someone thinks of your drug habit? Especially some bitch teenager?

Unless I'm debating w/ a politician or someone of importance, I'm not going trip on whether or not they judge me for my use. If they are that fucking unaccepting, fuck them. Fuck them hard.

I accept everyone, including dope fiends, theives, murderers and child molesters.

Fuck what people judge you w/.

[Digemlo]

Just tell him it may seem like that from an outsider's perspective, but once he'd had a good experience, he'd understand.

[static_vodka_420]

well i dont think theres any scientific scale to rate feelings and drugs cause feelings by releasing certasin chemicals so if any feelings are real so are the ones drugs cause its just an easier way to achieve them.. tell them that

[Donny Devito]

total BS because any feeling is true.

[JTC3889]

tell them it unlocks hidden potential already present before administering the drug (say its on a neurological basis if the person is being snotty

[aerozeppelin123]

I think what we're really looking at is not whether the feelings themselves are fake or not (IMO that doesn't make sense, a feeling is a feeling), but whether or not the source of the feelings is 'fake', and therefore less meaningful. As an example, if you climb to the top of a mountain and you feel happy, you have a real reason to be happy because you've just achieved something great. If you take some drugs, you could feel just as, if not more happy, but there's nothing to be genuinely pleased about cos all you did was put some chemicals into your body.

I think that's what people mean when they say feelings produced by drugs are fake - the level of euphoria is not matched by an achievement that those feelings should be reserved for.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well put.

[MrG]

I see what you are saying but by taking that approach one immediately is drawn to the mountain climbing analogy and to respond appropriately.

"WooHoo! I climbed a mountain!" - So fucking what?

See? Said mountain climber's apparently justified euphoria is inversely proportional to the level of my irritation at the fact he thinks he has actually done something worthwhile.

His euphoria is as a result of the endorphins and such being released by his body after much physical exertion and no small amount of mental stress i.e. after the stress of the climb his body rewarded the fact that he managed to stay alive by not falling to his death.

But you see he is no more entitled to that euphoria than our space cadet friend who drops E and reaches for the lasers.

The climber wasn't actually in any danger that wasn't of his own doing so why is he supposedly more entitled to feel euphoria?

The simple fact is that he is not more entitled to feel the euphoria because the body's reward mechanism is about encouraging behaviour that keeps us safe from predators and makes us want to go forth and multiply. Repeatedly.

It's not about doing something dangerous purely for recreational "fun". Nature doesn't do "fun" nature does "purpose".

Even if you are just looking at the argument that our cheesy quaver is getting an unfairly large dose of pleasure given his small effort compared to the climber, again the answer is going to be along the lines of - So what?

I don't mean that in an offhand way, this is not to simply ignore the viewpoint or dismiss it but the sense of injustice held by the "high on life" climber towards our chemical connoisseur is irrelevent. He climbed a mountain and felt a degree of pleasure in having done so. The fact that he didn't get hours and hours of euphoria from it is in no way a justification for having a stinky attitude towards people who get their kicks pharmacologically.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well said.

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by MrG

I see what you are saying but by taking that approach one immediately is drawn to the mountain climbing analogy and to respond appropriately.

"WooHoo! I climbed a mountain!" - So fucking what?

See? Said mountain climber's apparently justified euphoria is inversely proportional to the level of my irritation at the fact he thinks he has actually done something worthwhile.

His euphoria is as a result of the endorphins and such being released by his body after much physical exertion and no small amount of mental stress i.e. after the stress of the climb his body rewarded the fact that he managed to stay alive by not falling to his death.

But you see he is no more entitled to that euphoria than our space cadet friend who drops E and reaches for the lasers.

The climber wasn't actually in any danger that wasn't of his own doing so why is he supposedly more entitled to feel euphoria?

The simple fact is that he is not more entitled to feel the euphoria because the body's reward mechanism is about encouraging behaviour that keeps us safe from predators and makes us want to go forth and multiply. Repeatedly.

It's not about doing something dangerous purely for recreational "fun". Nature doesn't do "fun" nature does "purpose".

Even if you are just looking at the argument that our cheesy quaver is getting an unfairly large dose of pleasure given his small effort compared to the climber, again the answer is going to be along the lines of - So what?

I don't mean that in an offhand way, this is not to simply ignore the viewpoint or dismiss it but the sense of injustice held by the "high on life" climber towards our chemical connoisseur is irrelevent. He climbed a mountain and felt a degree of pleasure in having done so. The fact that he didn't get hours and hours of euphoria from it is in no way a justification for having a stinky attitude towards people who get their kicks pharmacologically.

This is cvery well put and I like to add, that there´s people, who get their endorphis/ euphoria in beating up homeless, or walking in the jungle with weapons shooting at another, a joyful drug-experience is a prioduct of millions of combines hours if reseacrhcing/developing a drug and a "proper use" e.g. a joyfull trip, is the result of a way of live, maniging and knowing all about the chemical, that you put into you, to make a step ahead.

Feelings are feelings and a drug can onyl develop a feeling in you, that already existed, itßs just altering the machinery of how your mind´s is looking at it, liek giving the brain another tool and a new perspective of experiencing your enviroment, your nature as you realize, that they way youßre processing things is altered.

The latter always being misinterpreted as "cheating", but it´s not, it´s a tool and the use has to be obviated by the user and used or -if the negatives overhelm, be dismissed.

Another point, I would say is, there cannot be too much joy in this world, if something gives you pleasure and adds to one´s life, it should be kept.

[purplehaze]

Originally Posted by vantranist

What do you say to somone who says drug are "fake feelings"

Perferibly in words that a Teenager would understand?

I know why i think its not a valid argument but i cant find the right way to express it.

Heres a 50ug shot of purple microdot! Now go run a mile and if you don't make it your grounded! (screaming loudly fight it, remember those are FAKE FEELINGS!)

Point proven... lol

You could show them the movie pulp fiction were the girl over doses on cocaine and then has to be stabbed in the heart with a long syringe filled with epinephrine to bring her heart back to life. Without epinephrine alot of people would die from overdose. This is the closest thing to a miracle swim has witnessed. Solely due to research and drugs. That part in the film is very crude and vivid and should paint the picture pretty well.

[psyche]

I think what we're really looking at is not whether the feelings themselves are fake or not (IMO that doesn't make sense, a feeling is a feeling), but whether or not the source of the feelings is 'fake', and therefore less meaningful. As an example, if you climb to the top of a mountain and you feel happy, you have a real reason to be happy because you've just achieved something great. If you take some drugs, you could feel just as, if not more happy, but there's nothing to be genuinely pleased about cos all you did was put some chemicals into your body.

I think that's what people mean when they say feelings produced by drugs are fake - the level of euphoria is not matched by an achievement that those feelings should be reserved for.

aerozeppelin has a point there, altough you have no more real reason to be happy when you conquered a very large rock as MrG pointed out. The difference is that you have to struggle a lot to get on top of the mountain. And all people can relate to what it might feel like to climb a high mountain all the way up, and more importantly they can relate to what it feels like to look at the distance standing at the top of the world. Also by climbing the mountain you prove to yourself that you have the guts and preservance to crawl many kilometers vertically by foot. Most importantly people hate things that bring out their own, humane weaknesses; it's so easy to take a drug and feel good, and some are so weak that they keep on taking the drug despite adverse effects. It's also a very cynical and depressing thought that the happiness could be arrainged by mixing your brain with certain chemical, it sort of reduces the human being to the equal level with the very things that they are exploring chemically and physically. It can be depressing if one hasn't admitted to himself the fact that we are all part of and a product of the nature and environment. Also, it was a whole different thing when these herbs contained spirits, but then the high-end science set it to tell people the 'truth'.

There's a so what included in all of this, but IMO it serves better the more deep point of this topic to set the question to why people tend to feel this kind of distinction of real and fake feelings is feasible, rather than proving it wrong, which would be quite easy.

[paranoid_android]

Here's a nice warm-up to get you into the mindset I'm thinking with here:

http://www.johndiesattheend.com/jdate2/intro.html

It's a setup for a work of fiction, by the way. Kind of like those Golden Compass books where the writer actually believes the opposite of the fiction. Anyway.

I think that as a species, as a sentient society, we're still pretty young and ignorant. There is a vast majority of people who believe in angels, gods, ghosts, and spirits. Telling them that we're just a chemical machine whose basic drives are self-preservation and reproduction takes that element of mysticality out of the picture. And most of those people, they can't live without that mysticality.

Living without this magical worldview might seem scary to those that currently think that way, but it's actually not that hard. Still, just the same way that a heroin addict can't picture life without the chemical contentment he lives in on a day-to-day basis, so too can't the magical thinker believe in a world devoid of a soul.

Picture in your mind a typical child of a christian family in the United States. The child still believes in Santa. Now picture that the only difference between that world and this world is that most people still believe in Santa Claus when they reach adulthood. Obviously that wouldn't work in the real world, because we'd see evidence that there are no gifts under the tree unless the parents buy them. But in this fictional world, wouldn't the child be baffled at the insistence that the fat man in the red suit is in fact just an arbitrary myth brought about by the culture in which he lives? The child would be in denial that Santa isn't real, and when he asked his friends what they thought, they would all support this denial.

Bottom line: all humans are irrational to some degree, but some more than others. The basis for the belief that drugs are inherently worthless and fake is a crutch woven from magical thinking and the support of society at large. One of two things happens when you question the validity of feelings caused by drugs: you either realize there is no reason for your beliefs beyond societal pressures, or you continue to believe based on those societal pressures without consciously acknowledging it.

Honestly, it's just the same as the baseless belief that dark-skinned people were of lesser worth 200 years ago. Eventually the number of people who thought this way grew smaller and smaller. Once a tipping point (not a simple majority, I would think) was reached around the middle of the 20th century, the law itself was challenged in protests.

I think some day in the future we'll look at the present-day stigmatizing of addicts and responsible drug users as an egregious human rights violation. The War on Drugs will be seen, I'm quite confident, in much the same way that slavery is seen now. Maybe it sounds like a stretch to equate the two, but think about it. Multitudes of people have been imprisoned, possibly for their entire lives, for something that in the future we probably won't think is a crime by any stretch of the imagination. And of course, the slave owners thought they were doing the poor Africans a favor by taking them out of that dreadful place. That sounds an awful lot like the right-wing thinking that imprisoning potheads and junkies is actually doing them a favor.

As to the actual question of what to say to someone who says drugs produce "fake" feelings... There isn't much you can say. Their bias obscures thinking too much for most any argument to be taken into true consideration. You could always throw this study at them: EDIT: I'm fucking retarded.

[Paracelsus]

^^^ What??? I made up that bogus abstract and posted it in Funny Shit! Don't throw this "study" at anyone.

EDIT (to contribute to topic): in my experience, most people fall into two categories - believers and non-believers in "better living through chemistry." The latter can simply not understand why someone would want to use chemicals to alter his or her feelings.

[purplehaze]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

The latter can simply not understand why someone would want to use chemicals to alter his or her feelings.

IMO this is the majority before having tried any substance.

[Paracelsus]

Exactly. Essentially, neither category is right because both are biased. As Nag put it once:

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

1. You cannot have an objective opinion about drugs if you ever tried them.

2. You cannot have an objective opinion about drugs if you NOT tried them.

[MrG]

Whoa! Great quote from Nag there!

I miss the stroppy bastard.

I do hope his shit is ok.

Offtopic I know, so shoot me.

[psyche]

Bottom line: all humans are irrational to some degree, but some more than others.

That's a point of view. Mine is to question the classification of rational as something ultimately true, since all the rational thinking and planning is ultimately based on subjective experience: we create quantum theories though they conflict with the knowledge we have about the world in the classic newtonian scope. Things work by simple basicrules that Newton invented, but on a microscopic and quantum level they bear no relevance to reality. We had to experimentally measure how things happen at that level and then reason the theorys based on the notions.

Taking in consideration that humans are part of the nature I don't find anything irrational in that they act as part of the nature, perceiving things mostly in their point of view. That is not to say that we shouldn't use the latest facultys of our brain to be able to understand what role do we play in all of this and to take sometimes the viewpoint of outsider.

About the magical worldview, I think it's arbitrary and even unproductive to draw clear lines between the creation of imagination and cold facts. The imagination is especially needed when one ponders about big or complex systems, especially involving people. Just take a look at how effective placebo is. You are part of it all, if you imagine yourself healthy, it has an impact on reality. Concentrating only to things you are certain of takes away a lot of power to influence.

Honestly, it's just the same as the baseless belief that dark-skinned people were of lesser worth 200 years ago. Eventually the number of people who thought this way grew smaller and smaller. Once a tipping point (not a simple majority, I would think) was reached around the middle of the 20th century, the law itself was challenged in protests.

I think some day in the future we'll look at the present-day stigmatizing of addicts and responsible drug users as an egregious human rights violation. The War on Drugs will be seen, I'm quite confident, in much the same way that slavery is seen now. Maybe it sounds like a stretch to equate the two, but think about it. Multitudes of people have been imprisoned, possibly for their entire lives, for something that in the future we probably won't think is a crime by any stretch of the imagination. And of course, the slave owners thought they were doing the poor Africans a favor by taking them out of that dreadful place. That sounds an awful lot like the right-wing thinking that imprisoning potheads and junkies is actually doing them a favor.

My thoughts exactly.

[paranoid_android]

Originally Posted by psyche

That's a point of view. Mine is to question the classification of rational as something ultimately true, since all the rational thinking and planning is ultimately based on subjective experience

...

About the magical worldview, I think it's arbitrary and even unproductive to draw clear lines between the creation of imagination and cold facts.

In the end we're saying the same thing: no human being, even the most scientific mind on earth, bases his beliefs and/or actions on perfect reason. In all likelihood there is no such thing. You just have to hope that you're dealing with somebody who shares your sense of reason. It's a lot like a sense of humor: if somebody doesn't have yours, any conversation that uses it will end in disagreement.

And yeah, you kind of have to give it to the old fart because that's a pretty succinct way to put the whole issue.

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by paranoid_android

In the end we're saying the same thing: no human being, even the most scientific mind on earth, bases his beliefs and/or actions on perfect reason. In all likelihood there is no such thing.

Swim's experiences with high-dose DXM have led him to suspect that logic and reason may be tied to the empirical evidence of our senses far more than anyone realizes. Complete dissociation does more than remove sensory information; it also changes, fundamentally, the way one thinks. If true, this would render the old rational/empirical divide operationally meaningless.

But he's not sure how much of that is the sensory deprivation and how much is the other effects of the drug. Anyone have experience with sensory deprivation sans chemicals?


ECL

[psyche]

In the end we're saying the same thing: no human being, even the most scientific mind on earth, bases his beliefs and/or actions on perfect reason. In all likelihood there is no such thing. You just have to hope that you're dealing with somebody who shares your sense of reason. It's a lot like a sense of humor: if somebody doesn't have yours, any conversation that uses it will end in disagreement.

That's right. Though I think most conversations can and should end in agreement to disagree. I just wanted to highlight the importance of the animalistic and subjective side of the human beings, being that I've compulsively suppressed that side of me all too well, life just isn't interesting or alive anymore. Exercise helps though, and if we would be talking about SWIM, he'd do some drugs to medicate, but I'm not into illegal stuff ofcourse. Wouldn't be writing these posts if it wasn't for volleyball.

Human beings need a certain degree of spirituality or emotionality in their life, or at least it helps a lot to have some. I don't see any good reason not to accept the fact that we are part of all this and thus have certain primitive behaviours, though it is ofcourse good to have the higher reasoning skills. That side of us is the reason we live for, it's our motivation. Having only means to achieve something makes us only involuntary parts of the society. But it's true also that waaaay too many people act way too irrationally. It's just the opposite that I'm concerned of because I started hating the irrational behaviour of human beings as something illusionary or false. When I finally figured that I don't need to think objectively all the time, it's enough that I can. It's a little like I shouldn't need to think all the time about something to say in company of others in order to know that my ego is still there.

This is getting pretty offtopic. Hope it doesn't matter. In my opinion this thread shouldn't need to stick with the title too tightly, because it is so closely related to this sort of conversation.

[MrG]

Well now this thread is just wandering off into the realms of the whole "what is reality" schism.

The OP's topic was how to respond to the typically ignorant attitude of those who state that drugs give the user emtional states that they consider as being fake.

Please stick to that, if you really want to continue on I would suggest starting or joining a relevant thread in the Euphoric Mind forum.

[psyche]

Swim's experiences with high-dose DXM have led him to suspect that logic and reason may be tied to the empirical evidence of our senses far more than anyone realizes. Complete dissociation does more than remove sensory information; it also changes, fundamentally, the way one thinks. If true, this would render the old rational/empirical divide operationally meaningless.

Just need to say that well observed. I was about to bring on that point in my previous post but thought that it'd be readable between the lines(if there's such a trope in english). Logic is the product of human experience and doesn't exist by itself. I think this is a better thread for this kind of conversation if anyone should want to go on further with this topic.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well done for finding a suitable thread to steer interested parties to.

[purplehaze]

Depending on the persons age swim would recommend smoking a joint with them, or even giving them beer.

Some teenagers are willing to refuse any information simple for attention, if the kid honestly believes that drugs are fake feelings swims honest opinion would be to get them a little inebriated that way they can understand that drugs are very real.

Swim is not saying give them crack cocaine or something, just a little weed or beer that way they can wrap there minds around the concept of inebriation. Something powerful were they could not fight it would be the most effective in swims opinion, swim thinks that a salvia trip (just 1) would effectively get the point across.

If the kid loses all touch of reality and has a complete loss of identity swim doesn't think that they will no longer question whether drugs are fake or not. Drugs are fake is something he has been told/taught or brainwashed into believing or he is just saying it to piss you off IMO. Swims opinion is to give them a taste of inebriation to prove that drugs are real, whether they be in the form of a oxycontin to relieve backpain, or a xanax for recreational value its still real as it can be. Not suggesting either for the child BTW. Again dont give them oxycontin or alprozam.


Another approach probably less effective would be to ask them why they think drugs are fake feelings. Then explain why we have substances available to us that are mind altering. Explain to them that each body has a specific chemical makeup and every drug/chemical in the earth effects them different. Right down to caffiene making people awake and alert drugs are real.

[MrG]

Although another alternate response migh be:

Yes, I know.

[I<3Salvia]

Drug them up on some kind of hallucinogen. That o'tta shake up their idea of what is real and what isn't.

Don't do this of course...

[psyche]

'Yes, I know' is pretty good. If someone really want's to bring up such a pointless point about fake feelings, then it's only appropriate to give a pointless answer.