Opinions - Prohibiting Alcohol again...

[drix]

I don't think prohibition of any kind is a good thing. Sure, I don't want my kids fucking up on smack or whatever, but if they do, I certainly don't want them sent to jail and branded as criminals if they did. Not that I have anything against criminals in particular, I'm saying that education and regulation are whats required. I have will have been sober for one year come january, and piss has caused me more problems than anything else. I don't think it should be illegal though and I have no problem with people who do drink, unless they have a problem with the drugs I may or may not choose to use. The thing is, it is a political football and will be kicked about as such. I don't believe alcohol is used as a tool of civil control, it creates far too many problems for that. Point is, and I'm sorry for rambling on a bit but my evening has been most enjoyable so far, people will fuck up on things wether legal or not, harm minimisation is much more possible when things are accepted, crime can be minimised by availability, and taking control from the people who control such things, (not that the government are any better or less greedy in my opinion). Corporations, politics and money are the issues here people, prohibition merely reduces availability and causes more harm than good.

[Nature Boy]

I understand the angle here. As I've mentioned previously, from a logical perspective, either all drugs should be entirely legal or prohibited completely. Any in-between policy would have to reflect the danger of the drugs themselves and very few people can argue that alcohol is safer than cannabis once legality parameters are removed and purity is guaranteed. Still though, I don't see this approach working because many people, ironically, would see it as completely unreasonable. Many would point to the historical and cultural significance of alcohol, compared to cannabis, another lame duck argument but one that is used all the same.

[drix]

Yes, it always surprises me how many people think that something is amoral purely because it is illegal. A wee story: I was in my local super market the other day, they are really tight about serving alcohol to people allready intoxicated(I am in New Zealand at the mo)This dude, obviously fucked up, and I do mean raving, stinky meths drinker fucked up, couldn't walk straight, mad as a fucking hatter fucked up! Comes up to the boy on the checkout "where's yous meths I can't fucking find it c**t" So, and I laughed long and hard about this, the boy walks this guy to where the meths is, takes the bottle from the shelf, carries it back to the checkout, accepts payment in small change and the dude leaves to continue his path of self distruction. About half an hour later I see him on the main shopping street yelling at kids and trying to fight the cops who were trying to arrest him.(with little success). I mean, how fucked up is that? They wouldn't have even sold the guy a six pack, but a liter of denatured methyl alcohol is perfectly fine.
These arguements are usually only advanced by people who find it more comfortable to quote hyperbole than think for themselves. This is the problem, people need to think for themselves. Who do they think controls the liquor industry? The nice farmer down the road who makes a lovely boutique cider? No, very large, powerful corporations who like to market alcoholic beverages in the same way you would an ice lolly. i.e. appealling to children. This will not change in the forseable future. Nor will the fact that when pot was made illegal in the U.S. there was a huge lobby from the cotton growers of the time because the hemp industry was losing them a lot of money, it being, aside from a lovely smoke, a very useful plant in lots of ways, including strong, durable fabrics. Prohibition bad. Please point me to one example of when it has worked. So, you make alcohol illegal, if people can't be bothered 'stilling their own which, allthough not hard has its own complications, methyl levels have to be watched etc. Or they buy it from smugglers or bootleggers, in the later case, drinking, more often than not 'poison whisky'. I mean, look at Al Capone for fucks sake. It's an unfair world we live in, I can't see it changing for the better in my life time. But who gives a fuck for the law anyway? I think living by a moral code that causes no harm to others is much more important. It's just a shame that you or I might have to go for a stay in a small room if we chose to indulge in any of the substances that are deemed unacceptable by those 'In Charge' and then were discovered by those wonderful people employed by them to keep them save when they're tucked up in they're cosy bed at night.(In a mansion, behind a big fence, with big fierce dogs roaming the lovely grounds in an exclusive, possibly gated, part of town). Fuck 'em, I shall try and live as I please regardless.

drix added 4 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...

^^^Woops! Spelling and gramatical errors. Sorry, been a very long night.In a good way.

drix added 2 Minutes and 25 Seconds later...

I just find it very hard to accept anyone on this site espousing prohibition of any kind. Bad bad bad.

drix added 296 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...

Just read this in todays paper. It kinda proves my point:

The free provision of heroin to addicts has won the overwhelming support of swiss voters.
Projections based on early results indicated that 69% of voters approved the program, the first of its kind in the world, in a poll under the country's system of direct democracy.
Crime by heroin addicts has fallen 60% since the initiative to allow health clinics to administer controlled doses of the drug began 14 years ago, according to the Swiss Federal Office Of Public Health.

Not alcohol, but still persuasive. This is abridged, the article is from The Times and appeared in todays Dominion Post(crappy provincial New Zealand daily)

[bcubed]

I really think SWIeuthanatos93420 is overestimating the sophistication of her/his fellow man. Drinkers aren't going to think "They're picketing a liqor store to demonstrate the futility of alcohol prohibition as a parallel to the futility of cannabis prohibition," they're much more likely to think, "Damn granola-head hippies wanna take MY booze away!"

Also, the news media--if they come--will present the story in whatever manner would draw the most viewers in a 15-sec spot, which will almost certainly be to present you as a bunch of stoner Carrie Nations, with an axe in one hand and a bong in the other...

In lizard's hometown, they passed a 10% drink tax to fund transit...drinkers are (as expected) furious, though I bet <50% even know where the money's going.

There's a much greater percentage in convincing drinkers that the same forces that want pot illegal also ultimately want booze illegal, too...just point out the changes in acceptability of alcohol use over the last 30 yrs, and throw in the word "endgame" about a half-dozen times to do the trick.

[Euthanatos93420]

OKay, I have had an overwhelming response of what amounts to this argument:

"People in general are too stupid; they just won't get it."

I must disagree with. I have faith in my fellow men. Sure there are a few tough noggins out there but I just got done reading George Lois' "What's the BIG IDEA?" which is a book on creative advertising. I recommend reading it to ANYONE. The guy is really a fucking mystic. He has basic NLP and Qabalistic principles riddled throughout his book. This is EXACTLY the big idea anti-prohibition needs.

Furthermore I've been studying NLP which reaffirms my faith in the capability of enough of the public to grasp the meaning of this satire. Thanks for the input but its going to tak ejust abit more than a slight against the intelligence of the GPU to persuade me otherwise.

This theory that people are stupid in general is what has led us to prohibition in the first place. That people are too stupid to make good decisions about the care of their own body. That's not good shepherding; that's fascism.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by Euthanatos93420

OKay, I have had an overwhelming response of what amounts to this argument:

"People in general are too stupid; they just won't get it."

I must disagree with. I have faith in my fellow men. Sure there are a few tough noggins out there but I just got done reading George Lois' "What's the BIG IDEA?" which is a book on creative advertising. I recommend reading it to ANYONE. The guy is really a fucking mystic. He has basic NLP and Qabalistic principles riddled throughout his book. This is EXACTLY the big idea anti-prohibition needs.

Furthermore I've been studying NLP which reaffirms my faith in the capability of enough of the public to grasp the meaning of this satire. Thanks for the input but its going to tak ejust abit more than a slight against the intelligence of the GPU to persuade me otherwise.

This theory that people are stupid in general is what has led us to prohibition in the first place. That people are too stupid to make good decisions about the care of their own body. That's not good shepherding; that's fascism.

I direct you to the following thread:

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71578

The vast majority of the population have absolutely no interest in making more drugs legal, nor do they have a great level of knowledge about illegal drugs. This does not make them stupid necessarily, but uninterested definitely. We live in a bubble of self-assurance on this forum; burst out of the bubble and onto your average street and the mantra "drugs are evil" can be heard loud and clear.

[libertalism]

You know this might not be the thread or the place but i think i know why alcohol and nicotine are accepted:

You can drink one beer and not get drunk , you can smoke a cigarette and feel the same as before. With other psychoactive substances it IS the intention of one to alter ones mind , to feel good, high or whatever and people are afraid of needing something to make them feel better or different.

[Euthanatos93420]

While that may be true...it is an illusion. Illusions are the basis of this evil machina we face.

[Euthanatos93420]

Aha! and it is that bursting I do explicitly. Everywhere I go I educate people about the truths DF has conveyed to me. I'm becoming more skilled at getting people to be receptive to my message and at the very least understand the principles of prohibition. All it takes is planting a few of the right seeds. Once they understand that prohibtion directly causes crime and not the other way around then they typically come back to me in a few months at the most asking questions. These ebing those I've given my most effective talks to. Albiet I've had far more ineffective talks but I belive those were my mistakes in communication rather than the other way around (At least more often than not).

Some of those people who have cosnidered my perspective and asked for more information have been extremely conservative individuals. I preach to the choir on occaison but only when I think they're a little out of tune. We've got to talk to those conservatives who actively move against us. If they can be swayed then the rest will fall like a house of cards.

Publicity stunts like this will gain awareness of this subject. The thing is that just because people believe that drugs should be prohibited doesn't mean they're stupid. It just means they're mis-informed. We were ALL there at one point in our lives. Wether through DF or other educational resources we discovered the truth. The truth is not that easy to find even though you've been in it for a while and it seems so obvious. To those out there in the darkness they just don't know what the light means when they see it. They need to be shown how to find the turth. We need to get PUBLICITY for the truth. People are smart enough to recognize it when they see it.

If I beleived otherwise I might just crack with despair. So I believe people are intelligent enough to understand given the opportunity or else I'll probably commit suicide. And I won't do that so here I am.

Euthanatos93420 added 1 Minutes and 47 Seconds later...

Oh and with 1k base...that's not really indicative of much. Maybe in the UK it might be a little. But here in the US....There are too many variables for 1k to mean anything. I'll bet the numbers significantly vary depending on how you poll here in the US. Besides polls mean jack shit except that the poller knows how to slant and sway with questions.

Oh and just to make that point...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

[libertalism]

Swims friendly druggies even know little about drugs , why the fuck would anyone who is antidrugwashed ever try to look something up besides for the protection of their children? And if they look something up they go to the prebiased sites who claim mj is the worst thing that can happen to someone even slightly ahead of becoming a terrorist.

libertalism added 6 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...

Shit man look at newspapers online and read the responses of the self claimed smart people. One that kept by me about the ban on mushrooms "Mushrooms cause hallucinations, they are usually used by people who don't give a shit about their health or others , witness the events caused by the use! This should be on the box, but the people who use these kinds of material won't understand (90% ) that they probably allready have severly damaged brains"

[drix]

There used to be a golf course near where someone lived where liberty caps were collected. These golf players didn't like people doing that, so they sprayed the mushrooms with some nasty shit. Some of these liberty cap collecting people ended in the A&E department, is that right or wrong? Does it reinforce your faith in your fellow man? Btw, if the poll referred to in an earlier post is about the Swiss, it wasn't a poll, (most statistics are bullshit and subjective), but a vote under direct democracy. If you don't vote, sure, you're not counted in the end figures, but the voting population is the point of democracy, which is, and I mean no offense, why it is such a shame that America has such a low voter turnout in general, when it's policies have such a direct impact on the rest of the world. While people continue to not give a fuck, and I mean all sorts of people, not just conservatives, nothing will change. My opinions are from experience in the real world and not the virtual one. It's also interesting to note that the swiss voted overwhelmingly against legalising cannabis at the same time as voting to help addicts. My interpretation of this would be that people see facilitating drug use as amoral, but have woken up to the fact that the world will be a better place for them if 'junkie scum' aren't running around pinching their shit, mugging them and shooting up in their parks. Perhaps a slight step in the right direction, but hardly altruistic. If I can just ramble a bit more, the tobacco and alcohol, have one but not get fucked up, arguement doesn't really stand up either. Somebody has a raging tolerance to benzos and opiates, they don't really get high from most of these anymore but they sure get sick without them, just as you don't feel well if you're a smoker and don't have that ciggie, or an alcoholic and don't have that drink. People drink for the effects as well as numerous other reasons, wether it's one or ten. I would imagine that demonstrations, silly people getting naked and running around to further their cause, whatever that cause may be, etc, will do no more than make you a bit of a joke for a while and, if you're lucky, get you on the news for a few seconds. Not in a good way. Advocating prohibition, even to illustrate the ridiculous, is, in my opinion, not doing anybody any good. I know you are not exactly advocating prohibition, and I agree with you on the point of the absurdity of being able to buy alcohol in a shop perfectly legally while you can go for a stay for being in possesion of other substances that would cause far fewer social/personal problems were they legal, I think people should be careful not to have themselves and by proxy their cause portrayed as some sort of lunatic fringe. Because that is exactly how this sort of thing is perceived. Outside of internet forums anyway

[Euthanatos93420]

Originally Posted by drix

There used to be a golf course near where someone lived where liberty caps were collected. These golf players didn't like people doing that, so they sprayed the mushrooms with some nasty shit. Some of these liberty cap collecting people ended in the A&E department, is that right or wrong?

Does it reinforce your faith in your fellow man?

I believe that p[eople make the best decisions available to them based on their current education and perception of options.

This is the second basic tenant of NLP. Sure what those guys did was more than fucked up but if they could have been made aware of the truth of what their actions would result in I'm sure they would have made better choices if such alternatives were made undeniably present to them.

Btw, if the poll referred to in an earlier post is about the Swiss, it wasn't a poll, (most statistics are bullshit and subjective),

no, it was a poll in the UK over ~1000 voluntary participants. read the link he posted, make sure to at least skip to the very end and read the last few lines if you don't take the time to read the whole thing.

but a vote under direct democracy. If you don't vote, sure, you're not counted in the end figures, but the voting population is the point of democracy, which is, and I mean no offense, why it is such a shame that America has such a low voter turnout in general,

If we could break up the bipartisan system that monopolizes it then something might be achieved. As it is both the douchebag and the turd sandwich will do their due diligence in fucking shit up to serve the money mongers.

when it's policies have such a direct impact on the rest of the world. While people continue to not give a fuck, and I mean all sorts of people, not just conservatives,

People give a fuck, they are scared and confused or else they are busy and distracted or else they are actually doing something they beleive will create change in the area they feel interest in.
[quote]
nothing will change.
[quote]
My aren't we the optimist. The fundamental nature of existence will always remain the same and that fundamental principle is that everything changes.

My opinions are from experience in the real world and not the virtual one.

How do you know that? How do you what you're experiencing is real? If what you call real is just electrical signals interpreted by the brain...
[quote]
It's also interesting to note that the swiss voted overwhelmingly against legalising cannabis at the same time as voting to help addicts. My interpretation of this would be that people see facilitating drug use as amoral, but have woken up to the fact that the world will be a better place for them if 'junkie scum' aren't running around pinching their shit, mugging them and shooting up in their parks. Perhaps a slight step in the right direction, but hardly altruistic.

Well...start preaching to the masses not the choir buddy.

If I can just ramble a bit more...tobacco and alcohol...[ramble ramble]...will do no more than make you a bit of a joke for a while and, if you're lucky, get you on the news for a few seconds.
[quote]
I sure fucking hope they laugh. I'd be a little worried if people took me seriously. News would be great. Free advertising and exposure is awesome.

sat·ire /ˈsætaɪər/ [sat-ahyuhr]
–noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

Not in a good way.

I disagree there is no such thing as bad publicity here. People see the satire and they will form their own opinions. That's the goal. The more the merrier. News always slants to hate. So what?

Advocating prohibition, even to illustrate the ridiculous, is, in my opinion, not doing anybody any good. I know ... absurdity ... alcohol ... social/personal problems ... lunatic ... Because that is exactly how this sort of thing is perceived. Outside of internet forums anyway

I couldn't agree more. Sorry for butchering your post but I couldn't help it and you really shouldn't run your whole post together like that it's difficult to read. Beside I get the idea but what really matter is that I don't give a fuck what people think of me. Great men became larger than life for such an attitude. Whether what they did was right or not is irrelevant. Mediocrity accomplishes SHIT. I want my Marijuana legal NOW. I'm sick of corporate cock sucking politicians sitting at their round table eating steak and stealing my tax dollars and giving it to their corporate cum suppliers.

Now, I'm not about to go vigilante but I am about to do some of the craziest non-violent shit I can think of to call attention to the absurd.

I'm not crazy. You are. In an insane society the only sane person is thus percieved as and becomes insane.

[Lunar Loops]

Euthanatos93420,

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your intended efforts (and all publicity garnered is good for the most part) and the fact that we have to keep on fighting, I disagree that it may be as simple as you infer (perhaps you don't and it's just my reading of it).

Do you not think earnest and good people have been fighting this fight for decades? Do you not think that people in the sixties also thought that there was a groundswell of opinion that was going to result in change? In particular with respect to the legalisation/decrim of cannabis?

Yes, we have to keep on battering at that door, but don't think for one second that all people are going to open it and say "fair enough, I understand now and I'll sign up for action". It is not going to happen anytime soon. This is going to be a slow process.

Do you not think that many people already think like we do, but are unwilling to say this publicly as we are talking about illegal activity? Even most of those who do agree, have no wish to partake and as such have no real interest in the 'cause'.

Using alcohol and tobacco as a reference point has limited value in my view. Most prohibitionists have cottoned onto this and will argue that "yes, they should also be illegal, but you can't now take back what is widely accepted across the globe". "Yes, alcohol is harmful and look at the problems that is causing already in our society, do we really want to unleash the same thing with other drugs?"

Never give up, but don't expect success overnight.

[drix]

I believe that p[eople make the best decisions available to them based on their current education and perception of options.

This is the second basic tenant of NLP. Sure what those guys did was more than fucked up but if they could have been made aware of the truth of what their actions would result in I'm sure they would have made better choices if such alternatives were made undeniably present to them.

No, no. These people knew full well how sick the shit they sprayed would make people, that's why they did it.

no, it was a poll in the UK over ~1000 voluntary participants. read the link he posted, make sure to at least skip to the very end and read the last few lines if you don't take the time to read the whole thing.

A fair point, well put. My fault.

If we could break up the bipartisan system that monopolizes it then something might be achieved. As it is both the douchebag and the turd sandwich will do their due diligence in fucking shit up to serve the money mongers.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. How would you propose going about this?

[QUOTE]People give a fuck, they are scared and confused or else they are busy and distracted or else they are actually doing something they beleive will create change in the area they feel interest in.
[quote]
nothing will change.

My aren't we the optimist. The fundamental nature of existence will always remain the same and that fundamental principle is that everything changes.

A vast majority don't give a fuck, wether this is due to apathy, ignorance or whatever. The book The Eagles Shadow by Mark Hertsgaard makes excellent reading. Optimism alone is nothing without pragmatism. The fundamental principle is not everything changes. Change has to be made, it doesn't occur alone, therefore is not a fundamental principle of excistence. Before you start, I'm talking about everything down to a molecular level, there is always a reason why things change, from a neural impulse to kicking down doors. Change does not occur for changes sake.

How do you know that? How do you what you're experiencing is real? If what you call real is just electrical signals interpreted by the brain...

Because reality IS perception, that's why everybody's is different. My point was you won't get a balanced view on a forum like this. Which ties in with preaching to the choir really, doesn't it.

sat·ire /ˈsætaɪər/ [sat-ahyuhr]
–noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

Patronising, irrelevant. Therefore not necessary.

I disagree there is no such thing as bad publicity here. People see the satire and they will form their own opinions. That's the goal. The more the merrier. News always slants to hate. So what?

There most certainly is such a thing as bad publicity, you're not Jerry fucking mcguire. Or are you? What do you think terrorists are trying to do? Create change, gain awareness for their cause i.e. publicity. Has it or will it help?

I couldn't agree more. Sorry for butchering your post but I couldn't help it and you really shouldn't run your whole post together like that it's difficult to read. Beside I get the idea but what really matter is that I don't give a fuck what people think of me. Great men became larger than life for such an attitude. Whether what they did was right or not is irrelevant. Mediocrity accomplishes SHIT. I want my Marijuana legal NOW. I'm sick of corporate cock sucking politicians sitting at their round table eating steak and stealing my tax dollars and giving it to their corporate cum suppliers

No blood here mate and not a particularly good job of butchering either. In fact if I had just bought meat from you, I wouldn't be back. As for the difficult to read part, well, fair enough, but I had been up all night and generally have a lot in my bloodstream. This gives me a tendency to carry on without making a cohesive point. I don't give a fuck what people think about you either, I do give a fuck about how people perceive this cause though. And on your point of cock sucking politicians, I shall stand behind and support your view of them 'til my dying day. I think though that it's the corporate cum suppliers that give the money to the politicians, which is why corporate tax law is so fucked up. The more they make, the more they give.

I'm not crazy. You are. In an insane society the only sane person is thus percieved as and becomes insane.

That is just pedantic.

Healthy debate is what it's all about here, so you may take your knife and hack away my brother in arms. I shall take no offense, and I hope you don't either.

Well...start preaching to the masses not the choir buddy.

Just felt it necessary to point out that I most certainly do. But I don't think there's anybody on here who isn't a member of the choir, thus, hardly the outlet, is it really?

Kick back, fire one up, live by your own moral code. Have the courage to change what you can, the strength to accept what you can't.

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, I just can't help but see the efforts you propose as futile.

[Cryptic Concoction]

That is just pedantic.

Healthy debate is what it's all about here, so you may take your knife and hack away my brother in arms. I shall take no offense, and I hope you don't either.

How is that pedantic? I'm just wondering...

On another note, I think that in order to alter the general perception of drugs in prohibitionist societies, fundamental change would need to occur. By virtue of a protracted and intensive conditioning process, the public has internalized the agenda and attitude of the government toward drugs since the age of five. The structure to which they form their perceptions of drugs is deeply embedded in their cognition. The government has molded their pliable minds.

[drix]

Well, my sanity or lack there of is not the point. Quoting dogma at the expense of thought and cause is pedantic. While there is some truth in the old saying, busting it out there and then was, in my view anyway, pedantic.

[Euthanatos93420]

Healthy and fair debate has a place in society. Just look at all it has achieved for the agriculture industry fighting the petrol industry for the last century. Please, them corporate scum suckers don't fight fair. I think it's time we stopped.

There most certainly is such a thing as bad publicity, you're not Jerry fucking mcguire. Or are you? What do you think terrorists are trying to do? Create change, gain awareness for their cause i.e. publicity. Has it or will it help?

Depends on their objective. They might have been effective but since I'm not privy to the current status, operations, and recruitment success of terrorist cells I wouldn't know. I imagine that the whole ditty did garner a few recruits. Which would mean their objective would have been achieved.

But I really don't want to digress into the esoteric significance of 9/11 here...

The point is, not everyone will agree with legalizing marijuana and pussyfooting around with healthy debate will only get you so far. It's good for those people who deal with the politicians and the lawyers. I however want to get mass publicity and awareness of the the true horror of the WoD crisis. The only way to get mass publicity is with audacity. Shock & Awe. Shakkanah. Same shit.

And on your point of cock sucking politicians, I shall stand behind and support your view of them 'til my dying day. I think though that it's the corporate cum suppliers that give the money to the politicians, which is why corporate tax law is so fucked up. The more they make, the more they give.

Which is why I propose to threaten their DOC by taking their irrationality to its logical conclusion. They would never give it up. You have nothing to fear. Satire is relevant. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence but it seems that very few people up ot this point have been grasping the meaning of it so I thought I'd clarify.

Euthanatos93420 added 4 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...

Healthy and fair debate has a place in society. Just look at all it has achieved for the agriculture industry fighting the petrol industry for the last century. Please, them corporate scum suckers don't fight fair. I think it's time we stopped.

There most certainly is such a thing as bad publicity, you're not Jerry fucking mcguire. Or are you? What do you think terrorists are trying to do? Create change, gain awareness for their cause i.e. publicity. Has it or will it help?

Depends on their objective. They might have been effective but since I'm not privy to the current status, operations, and recruitment success of terrorist cells I wouldn't know. I imagine that the whole ditty did garner a few recruits. Which would mean their objective would have been achieved.

But I really don't want to digress into the esoteric significance of 9/11 here...

The point is, not everyone will agree with legalizing marijuana and pussyfooting around with healthy debate will only get you so far. It's good for those people who deal with the politicians and the lawyers. I however want to get mass publicity and awareness of the the true horror of the WoD crisis. The only way to get mass publicity is with audacity. Shock & Awe. Shakkanah. Same shit.

And on your point of cock sucking politicians, I shall stand behind and support your view of them 'til my dying day. I think though that it's the corporate cum suppliers that give the money to the politicians, which is why corporate tax law is so fucked up. The more they make, the more they give.

Which is why I propose to threaten their DOC by taking their irrationality to its logical conclusion. They would never give it up. You have nothing to fear. Satire is relevant. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence but it seems that very few people up ot this point have been grasping the meaning of it so I thought I'd clarify.

[drix]

Hey, hey. Touche and well put. I sincerely wish you and anybody else for that matter all the luck in the world with their fight against what is truly an unbalanced, exploitative and unfair political system.
At the very least, even by just writing a letter, people aren't just sitting there complaining but actually acting. Revolution, historically, ALWAYS comes at a cost. Which is why students in Che Guevera T-shirts piss me off, as do those espousing communism, marxism etc when they have no real idea of what the larger consequences, mainly due to human nature, are. But, I digress.(And I bet I get shit for that last comment).
For the record, I enjoy this sort of 'discussion' and do not feel at all that you were, intentionally or otherwise, insulting my intelligence.
But, good luck to ya mate, people are so full of misinformation regarding all kinds of drugs that you are climbing a very steep hill, they allready think we're a bunch of 'losers,' 'junkie scum' etc.
I certainly would not put pot in the same bracket as other things enjoyed, but there are plenty who do. Don't get me wrong there either, when it comes to, shall we say enjoyable substances, I'm not anti anything. I just feel that certain extremes of behaviour are nothing but grist to the mill of ignorance.
Smoke a fat one for me. Cigar that is. In case there happen to be any narco scum lurking about.

[drix]

Hey Euthanatos03420

I was looking through some old paper backs today, and although this is probably not the place for it, This is from 'The Dead Zone', by Stephen King.
It made me chuckle and I thought it might make you chuckle for some reason. Anyway:

"There was also a carton of paperbacks entitled America the TruthWay: The Communist-Jewish Conspiracy Against Our United States.
Greg did better with this paperback, printed on cheap pulp stock, than with all the Bibles put together. It told all about how the Rothschilds and the Roosevelts and the Greenblatts were taking over the U.S. economy and the U.S. government. There were graphs showing how the Jews related directly to the Communist-Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyite axis, and from there to the Antichrist itself.
The days of McCarthyism were not long over in Washington; in the Midwest Joe McCarhty's star had not yet set, and Margaret Chase Smith of Maine was known as 'That Bitch' for her famous Declaration of Conscience. In addition to the stuff about Communism, Greg Stillson's rural farm constituency seemed to have a morbid interest in the idea that the Jews were running the world."

(Greg Stillson was a travelling book salesman in the novel)

[Euthanatos93420]

I'm familiar with that piece of SK's work actually. If that sort of thing interests you then join our alternative history group.

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/group.php?groupid=78

Though history is an extensive analysis of cultural movement the group is geared toward collection of and rating information. Racial discussion is welcome as long as it's geared toward educational ends. Blatant racism is not welcome in the group and I'm pretty sure there is a forum rule against it. The 'Jewish Conspiracy' bit is a tricky one. We'll certainly discuss it though when I have enough people to open a forum thread.

[The Matt Attack]

I being a recovering alcoholic, strongly believe that Marijuana is 1000000 times safer than the consumption of alcohol. They could prohibit alcohol again and I would'nt care a bit, just legalize Marijuana simultaneously please! My father a 48 year old hippie always tells me that he knows he will see Marijuana legal to the public in his lifetime. The only thing I say is "I hope so", but I seriously and sadly doubt that my father will ever see this happen. I don't even think I'll see it in my lifetime so I feel sorry for the both of us.

[Little Git]

If you want to legalise drugs you have to take a leaf out of the books of those minorities who have suffered discrimination and who now enjoy considerably less discrimination, even equality. For example, black and gay people.

And so, alcohol is the majority drug. Many alcohol users differentiate between themselves and other drug users because they don't see alcohol as a drug. What you have to do is put the alcohol users (who only use alcohol) in a state known as cognitive dissonence (alcohol is a drug and I'm taking it; but I don't like drugs). That is a conflict between their actions and beliefs because right now they are in cognitive harmony (alcohol is not considered a drug).

That's what happened to Black people. At one time they were not considered fully human: they were considered more ape than human. You see that's how the Natzis were able to kill so many Jews because in their eyes they were killing vermin not humans. So discriminating against or killing ethnic minorities is not a problem.

It works the same way with alcohol and other drugs.

The big problem here is getting people to accept the facts of what alcohol does to you.

SWIM being a teetotaller and someone who very rarely takes drugs: He doesn't even drink tea or coffee. I believe that the problem with someone who only drinks alcohol is that they are under it's sway 24 hours a day, even if they only drink at weekends. It takes at least a year or 2 for them to realise, truly realise what alcohol does to you. It's as if alcohol stays lodged in the brain and continues to influence their thoughts and actions.

At least the hatred unleashed against minorities is not normally created by a drug.

So to sum up you need to get alcohol users to realise that they are also drug users which is very difficult. Then ask them how does it feel to be a "druggie" and would they like to be locked up or looked down upon for what they do. Of course they would not. So why do it to others?

[Euthanatos93420]

Originally Posted by Little Git

So to sum up you need to get alcohol users to realise that they are also drug users which is very difficult. Then ask them how does it feel to be a "druggie" and would they like to be locked up or looked down upon for what they do. Of course they would not. So why do it to others?

And this is the heart of the message my little skit will convey.

[drix]

I'm familiar with that piece of SK's work actually. If that sort of thing interests you then join our alternative history group.

Ta for the link, I'll take a look.

I being a recovering alcoholic, strongly believe that Marijuana is 1000000 times safer than the consumption of alcohol. They could prohibit alcohol again and I would'nt care a bit, just legalize Marijuana simultaneously please! My father a 48 year old hippie always tells me that he knows he will see Marijuana legal to the public in his lifetime. The only thing I say is "I hope so", but I seriously and sadly doubt that my father will ever see this happen. I don't even think I'll see it in my lifetime so I feel sorry for the both of us.

Big ups to you mate. I will have been dry 1 year on the 28th Jan. Caused me/led me to cause myself, mucho grief, and more legal problems than the illegal things the cat keeps around. Sadly though, I think you're probably right, although, in, is it Victoria, Australia? I'm pretty sure it is. You are allowed to grow for your own use, not sell or anything, but personal is o.k.. Check out Nimbin on the net. I was in Brisbane last year but never got there.

And so, alcohol is the majority drug. Many alcohol users differentiate between themselves and other drug users because they don't see alcohol as a drug. What you have to do is put the alcohol users (who only use alcohol) in a state known as cognitive dissonence (alcohol is a drug and I'm taking it; but I don't like drugs). That is a conflict between their actions and beliefs because right now they are in cognitive harmony (alcohol is not considered a drug).

Up to a point perhaps, but, have you noticed that alcoholism is socially acceptable up to a point? A functioning alcoholic is fine, at least in a lot of social circles/cultures, whereas a chronic is not, to the point of being ostracized in much the same way as an illegal, sociably unacceptable drug addict. The perception of Use and abuse.

That's what happened to Black people. At one time they were not considered fully human: they were considered more ape than human. You see that's how the Natzis were able to kill so many Jews because in their eyes they were killing vermin not humans. So discriminating against or killing ethnic minorities is not a problem.

Social conditioning of the times. Even during those times enlightened thinkers recognized the abominations around them for what they were, so did a lot of others, who chose to say or do nothing because it suited them politically or financially. I don't think it's applicable here though, people were conditioned to accept slavery, the nazi machine of state, according to the apologists anyway, hid a lot of what was going on from the people,(I only believe this up a point) and got where they did through the prevailing conditions of the times in europe, a lot of which were a natural consequence of world war one etc, it also serves well to remmember that Hitler and fascism had much support in both the U.k. and U.S. But a discussion for that history thread maybe?

Personally, as a teetotaller and as someone who very rarely takes drugs: I don't even drink tea or coffee, I believe that the problem with someone who only drinks alcohol is that they are under it's sway 24 hours a day, even if they only drink at weekends. It takes at least a year or 2 for them to realise, truly realise what alcohol does to you. It's as if alcohol stays lodged in the brain and continues to influence their thoughts and actions.

Well, like most drugs, it alters brain chemistry, and with constant use, this becomes more profound and much harder to reverse. I don't think this thread is so much about the consequences of alcoholism though. Users and people in general are willing to accept a wee health risk for things they enjoy. Red meat, cell phones, electricity, television, the list goes on. Smoking 2 packs of cigarettes, is, apparently, comparable in toxicity to breathing the air in a major city for half an hour around peak times but people continue to buy/drive SUVs, my neighbour has three cars and a ute he uses for work, a family of four, two of which won't be old enough to drive for a good few years yet, and corporations keep on going. There are vast differences between users of alcohol, alcoholics and even distinctions between types of alcoholic as there are with all drug users.

At least the hatred unleashed against minorities is not normally created by a drug.

But has often been used to feul such or similar. Drugs given to kamikaze and soldiers. Crazy, alcohol and drug feulled atrocities carried out by armies of children in certain places, aldults in others. Check out where the word assassin comes from.

So to sum up you need to get alcohol users to realise that they are also drug users which is very difficult. Then ask them how does it feel to be a "druggie" and would they like to be locked up or looked down upon for what they do. Of course they would not. So why do it to others?

It's a question of social acceptability. Last time they criminalised alcohol what happened and who continued to drink? Certainly wasn't just the dregs of humanity. Legality plays a huge part in a huge amount of peoples moral perception. The amount of times people say 'ooh, I wouldn't do that, it's illegal.' That's letting someone else do your thinking for you. Whilst I certainly believe there needs to be laws, illegal doesn't mean immoral. A lot of laws are just as, if not more, immoral than the people they are supposed to control. As for why do it to others, take a good look at the world and see how much 'they' give a fuck what they do to others, home or away.

Anyway, I reckon anybody willing to stand up and be counted is worthy of respect, there's no other way for change.

[Little Git]

[quote=drix;507441]
It's a question of social acceptability. Last time they criminalised alcohol what happened and who continued to drink? Certainly wasn't just the dregs of humanity. Legality plays a huge part in a huge amount of peoples moral perception. The amount of times people say 'ooh, I wouldn't do that, it's illegal.' That's letting someone else do your thinking for you. Whilst I certainly believe there needs to be laws, illegal doesn't mean immoral. A lot of laws are just as, if not more, immoral than the people they are supposed to control. As for why do it to others, take a good look at the world and see how much 'they' give a fuck what they do to others, home or away.quote]

I do not believe that the legality of a drug plays such a great part in the moral perception of its use, despite what people say. I say this in part because of my mad uncle's experiences. Let me show you some examples.

He likes to trip on magic mushrooms (which are in many ways the antithesis of drug taking) although he has not taken them for over 3 years.



Example:

He remembers trying to get a friend of his to take a fresh magic mushroom trip: she refused. When he asked why she said they are illegal and she would feel guilty about taking them which might influence her trip. Well at the time here in the UK they were legal and he pointed this out to her. She still refused; he asked her why she then replied that she thought she might get addicted to them and end up rather like a heroin addict, which is utter nonsense.



Another example:

He was in a swinging club once and he was sniffing a bottle of poppers, a fellow swinger told him to be careful and not let the manager using poppers. He asked why. The swinger told him that the manager had once caught someone using poppers there and threatened to smash their head in with a baseball bat. The reason being that he did not want drugs brought into his club. Now this manager could not have cared less that poppers were and still are perfectly legal for personal use. They can be bought at any sex shop throughout the UK as far as the manager was concerned that guy was using drugs in the club.

He was in another swinging club once and he was told by a swinger who was drinking alcohol that he did not approve of him using poppers although he knew they were legal. He was in the same club another time and heared a couple point at a guy dissaprovingly and say oh look at him he's using drugs (poppers).



Another example:

He works in the substance misuse field and he was once threatened by the manager of drug rehab with dismissal on the spot if he had ever taken mushrooms in the last few weeks. He even asked him if he had ever come to work whilst tripping. Now this was in a rehab for heroin and crack cocaine users. What mushrooms have to do with this I don't know. Ironically, I heard that the manager had been legless on alcohol at the weekend at a party. Now why didn't he ask the manager or any of the staff if they had ever come into work under the influence of alcohol?


When he went to University to do an MA in social work, he was once asked by a senior lecturer in law if he would ever go to work tripping. Well what about you senior lecturer in law do you drink? Would you ever work with vulnerable people whilst drunk?


One More:

If you still think the legality of a drug greatly influences perception, think about this: I know that if I went to a party where people were drinking and said you know what everyone I'd prefer to do this: I then pour some glue in a bag and breath it in a couple of times. Most people would be shocked. The fact that it's legal is neither here nor there. You could shout to everyone don't worry it's legal; they still would not like it.


Ultimately it comes down to this alcohol is not considered a drug and other drugs are, apart from cigarettes.




[quote=drix;507441]As for why do it to others, take a good look at the world and see how much 'they' give a fuck what they do to others, home or away.quote]

I disagree, People often do care about what they do to others home or way (not always granted). Charities and anti-war movements are evidence of this.

Reputation Comments on this post:

I liek your open minded perspectives. Interesting perception of Paradoxes.