Sorry if this is an inappropriate forum but it was my best guess.
At the beginning of the school year, one of the university papers at SWIM's school published an article the was strongly anti-drug as well as poorly argued. So SWIM wrote a lengthy response. They asked him to trim it down to under 800 words, so he did. He decided to have it published anonymously for fear of negative stigma that may appear around him at his university. He was very pleased to find it published today and though it was written in september and he has learned much since and would write it differently today, he is still pretty pleased with it. SWIM suggested I share it here with an audience that would appreciate it. Remember you can always try to do the same if you see something you disagree with in a newspaper. SWIM doesn't know what kind of impact it will have, but it should get at least equal attention to the other article as it's 3rd page (and full page) in the same paper. Victory! (SWIM hopes)
And the article:
Quote:
In “The Moral Stance” the author makes a few inaccurate claims and unreasonable generalizations. The biggest problem is his use of the term 'drug' as if all drugs are experientially, physically or psychologically the same. I feel it is very important to differentiate between different drugs as the effects are so profoundly different.
Most would accept the definition that a drug is something that when ingested alters something in the user, physically or psychologically. This would include caffeine, chocolate, alcohol, crack, heroin, methamphetamine, aspirin, sugar and most of the food we eat.
Let's look at the author's personal experience. He turned to 'drugs' (what
drugs?) as a coping mechanism and to fit in, when in fact he viewed the use of drugs as "weird". Set and setting are the key elements to the psychedelic experience. If one goes into drugs with negative ideas or guilt about what one is doing, then they are quite likely to have an experience that reflects that. Most psychedelics tend to magnify what's on the mind. Whereas some other drugs such as alcohol may serve as distractions and numb the mind.
The "deficits" of the drugs users actions on society? Now that's just
ridiculous. That depends on the individual. The statement would be slightly
less inaccurate if it were referring specifically to addicts. However there are
many recreational users that function very well in society and are amongst its top contributors.
There are compelling arguments that the drug war is doing far more damage to society than the drug users themselves. Often when psychoactive substances are criminalized, people search for new, often more dangerous or poorly researched routes to intoxication. For a better look at the war on drugs, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs)
Saying that users are self-destructive is questionable. Some users love life and drugs are only a small part of it. Other people live for the drug. It can't be denied that drug abuse can sometimes be used as a cry for help from broken people and as a means of suicide. Drug use is not without risks. I think it is up to the responsible individual to study the potential risks and benefits of anything they choose to do, be it taking drugs, travelling to a new country or skydiving.
In regards to Skultety saying that the senses should be treasured and in top shape: it's impossible for them to be in top shape at all times. People
who have strained themselves through exercise will not be in top shape after strenuous exercise. There are drugs that can speed up the recovery process. Again, most health supplements are drugs. People get tired and their senses become dulled. Some drugs can temporarily enhance awareness and the senses. Stimulants will usually do a fine job of waking a person up and may aid in getting things done when time is an issue. Granted, there are risks involved.
Pot smokers are rarely mentors or peers that have conviction in their actions? One reason I believe the author holds this opinion is simple: the negative implications of drug use within our society. You won't find many people of influence admitting to smoking pot because it is such a touchy subject, they are likely to lose much of their support. The people in power who do use do not want to be associated with “hippies” and other social misfits.
Drugs are not bad. Drugs are drugs, substances which can heal and help or
hinder. It depends on the user. Same as anything, the difference between
medicine and poison lays in the dosage.
"Drugs seriously impair judgement, brain functions, bodily functions and lead to dependence." None of those claims can be attributed to every drug. It sounds like a fair statement for say alcohol, but I'm not so sure about ecstasy, LSD or sugar.
I'm not encouraging anyone to take drugs. I just felt "The Moral Stance" article was harmfully biased and poorly researched. If anyone would
like some less biased information I recommend starting with erowid.org and
wikipedia (see psychoactive drugs) From there you can pursue research into the more extreme sides of the arguments for and against recreational use, the war on drugs, etc.
Don't believe everything that you read. Research and make your own judgements, and continue to hear out arguments against your views. Be willing to admit it when you're wrong. The truth of today could be the primitive thinking of tomorrow; we once thought the world was flat.
Good article + having the confidence to publish it.
SWIM would add a good point to often include is the economic implications as regardless of whether a person agrees with taking drugs themselves from an economic point of view the war on drugs is impossible. Ultimately there is a huge demand (by consumers) for various illegal drugs and people will forever come up with ingenious ways of supplying them. Basic economics, cut out one supplier and if there is enough demand two will appear and replace them. Success in drug busts will only ever be temporary and will push up the profit for suppliers that still exist.
True. Now if only some brave souls will take the time (though we here understand it may be redundant due to the politics involved) to try to write responses to outrageous salvia articles in their respective city (or even outside their area, hell SWIM supposes he should do it...) to try and calm the coming storm. It's just a matter of writing and paying postage to do so anonymously, or starting an anonymous email account.... SWIM will consider his own advice.
to be honest SWIM thinks the only reason salvia has not been banned already is the dysphoric reactions it often produces and therefore it has not been very popular (or not created lots of repeat customers).
SWIM thinks unlike other chemicals which would automatically be banned just for being fun/enjoyable - could imagine salvia lasting a bit longer providing no major deaths occur. As someone has already mentioned though if youtube videos are springing up, just a matter of time before someone does something stupid and gets frontpage article.
Thing is though, salvia is probably a legal chemical/drug with the smallest fan base (for want of a better term), who would be willing to invest effort and money in writing about it, protesting against banning etc.
That may be true, but there may be people who aren't even fans or users but desire less government restrictions of personal freedom and rash decisions based on morals rather than empirical evidence, who will support such a cause.
I think it adds a good effect to the paper by comparing illicit drugs with everyday drugs. I noticed you did that a few times, putting exstacy LSD and Sugar all together. It makes us lump them into the same category breaking the barrier between illicit and everyday "drugs".I liked it..
It sounds like a fair statement for say alcohol, but I'm not so sure about ecstasy, LSD or sugar.
Nice work there fella. I particularly like the inclusion of sugar at the end of that sentence. It adds a sense of impact (sugar? . . .wuuUUUH?!!), neatly creating the sensation of the misinformed reader having the rug swiftly pulled from beneath his feet.
I applaud any and all who seek to combat the plague that is bad journalism.
14-12-2007, 20:41
I liked it..
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
