Opinions - Prohibiting Alcohol again...

[Cryptic Concoction]

Originally Posted by Little Git

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

I doubt that there is one simple answer to what has led to the public attitude toward alcohol and this perplexing dichotomy. Even if we are to say that the social acceptance of alcohol is a result of not considering alcohol to be a drug, we can not fully understand it without examining the variables that led to the development of these cognitive categories.

From a holistic perspective, I do not believe that we can discount the powerful influence of legality in shaping public perception of psychotropics. However, social and religious sanctions have also been imposed against (some) drug use (some seem to believe that illicit drug use is immoral), and I would speculate that all of these may be intertwined.

For such a multifaceted and intricate issue, I think it would be reductive to portray the dichotomy of drugs and alcohol as being driven by one factor alone.

I think there are simply too many variables to consider to attribute this contrast to any particular force without exhaustive analysis.

[drix]

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.

True, I was referring to the 'they' who make our laws etc. i.e. the state. Sorry, I didn't realise you meant charities and anti-war movements.

I personally think tripping at work, especially in a field where you have to excercise judgement and take responsibility for others in any way is irresponsible. As is being drunk under the same circumstances.

How are magic mushrooms the antithesis of drug taking? The substances in the mushrooms are psychoactive DRUGS. Plants are where a lot of drugs, medical and otherwise come from. From aspirin to lsd to heroin to alcohol.

Alcohol is considered as acceptable by society as in our great leaders tell us so.
By it being legal. Thus facilitating it's use/abuse.
It is proven to cause more social harm than pot. Fact.
Pot is considered as unacceptable by society as in our great leaders tell us so.
By it being illegal. Thus not facilitating it's use. Or collecting tax on it. In fact, in some places punishing an individual rather harshly for possession of it.

Legality does play a huge part in a lot of peoples moral perception.

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.

So, she would have felt rather guilty had they been illegal? She has also been misseducated or not educated at all when it comes to drugs in general. State and other groups missinformation perhaps? Maybe keeping people scared/misseducated enough to not only accept their legal status but believe it is true and right and there to protect them from the 'evil scourge' of drugs and their users.
An interesting example for your arguement.

How or why is/do you call, your uncle mad? None of my business I know, but I was just curious.

drix added 14 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...

I can't see any of the examples listed above as mad or even as examples of extreme behaviour. Not even the glue one. Try busting that bag out in some parts of town, see how many friends you have all of a sudden. A butane can on a bus is an interesting conversation starter, depending on the types you like to converse with of course.
As is a can of special brew or a joint. I haven't been in the U.K. for eleven years now, but I can't imagine it's changed all that much.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by drix

How or why is/do you call, your uncle mad? None of my business I know, but I was just curious.

That was not Little Git, but me. I was removing self incrimination from the post and showing possible examples. It has no bearing on the subject matter. Could have used festering Aunt, my beatific brother, serious sister, etc, etc

On another issue, the huffing example is not great. Anyone who takes part in such practices places no value on their health. There are severe and very real dangers from huffing. Legality doesn't even come into it.

[Little Git]

First of all I can't get the multiquote to work so I'll put any quotes in bold italics an quote marks.
My comments will be just underneath not in bold italics.







"True, I was referring to the 'they' who make our laws etc. i.e. the state. Sorry, I didn't realise you meant charities and anti-war movements".

When you said "they" I thought you meant law makers and society in general. By using charities and anti-war movements I did not just mean these types of organisations; but more of an example of how people can care; and perhaps we can draw some hope from this. I'm an optimist.









"I personally think tripping at work, especially in a field where you have to excercise judgement and take responsibility for others in any way is irresponsible. As is being drunk under the same circumstances".

Perhaps I should have explained myself more. My point is that in the circumstances I explained the lectureres or employer would not have asked anyone (most people) who drinks alcohol if they would go to work under the influence of alcohol.
They asked the question because it was magic mushrooms which were legal like alcohol; but they could not care less about the legal status of magic mushrooms. To them magic mushrooms are drugs (end of story).





"How are magic mushrooms the antithesis of drug taking? The substances in the mushrooms are psychoactive DRUGS. Plants are where a lot of drugs, medical and otherwise come from. From aspirin to lsd to heroin to alcohol."

I did not just say magic mushrooms are the antithesis of drug taking. I said in many ways magic mushrooms are the antithesis of drug taking; not in everyway.
Let me explain: When people (in the UK) describe something as a drug they normally mean drug in a derogatory way that is a drug is a substance which is a mind alterant which is physically or mentally addictive like heroin; or its physically or mentally harmful like methamphetamine; or its used in escapism that is running away from or blotting out reality/problems, which is what heroin can be used for, rather than face upto them
The above can also be applied to alcohol.

Magic mushrooms are none of the above. Okay I suppose at the most you could in some people magic mushrooms might be mentally harmful; but that would mainly apply to people with underlying mental health issues. In my experience many people who have a bad trip are in no hurry to take mushrooms again. This is unlike alcohol where I've seen people in a terrible mess: drunk; vomiting etc. They say never again; but guess what? Yes, a week later they are doing it again.



"I can't see any of the examples listed... as mad or even as examples of extreme behaviour. Not even the glue one. Try busting that bag out in some parts of town, see how many friends you have all of a sudden."My point about the glue is that, in the UK, glue sniffing is widely seen as the lowest of the low or on the same level as injecting heroin. Sure some people are into it; but most people will seriously look down on you if they see you sniffing glue. They absolutely don't care that it's legal. You can shout it's legal from the rooftops people will still see it as a bad thing.

And guess what? This legal thing does not even apply just to drugs it applies to other things. To you men out there try going out dressed as a woman and tell everyone you like dressing this way. The fact it's legal (certainly is in the UK) will not necessarily make the people around you, who know you are a man, treat you in a non predjudiced way.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by Little Git

My point about the glue is that, in the UK, glue sniffing is widely seen as the lowest of the low or on the same level as injecting heroin. Sure some people are into it; but most people will seriously look down on you if they see you sniffing glue. They absolutely don't care that it's legal. You can shout it's legal from the rooftops people will still see it as a bad thing.

As said earlier, people who sniff solvents should not necessarily be looked down upon, but they certainly SHOULD be told how stupid their actions are. What risks they are taking with their health and even their life. This is primarily a harm reduction site and as such solvent abuse should be discouraged at EVERY opportunity. The risks are VERY real and potentially VERY serious. Can't be stressed enough, LEGALITY IS NOT THE ISSUE WITH SOLVENTS, but safety is. IT IS A 'BAD THING' as you put it.

I get your point about legality, but using glue-sniffing is a VERY poor example. You are correct though, people will look down on you if they see you coming out of a headshop, but not if you are coming out of the off-licence (in fact you could have a whole trolley load of alcohol and most would just laugh and say something along the lines of "having a party?").

[drix]

Originally Posted by drix



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

That wasn't me, that said that!^^^It was little git so it was.

From a holistic perspective, I do not believe that we can discount the powerful influence of legality in shaping public perception of psychotropics. However, social and religious sanctions have also been imposed against (some) drug use (some seem to believe that illicit drug use is immoral), and I would speculate that all of these may be intertwined.

And some have given both psychotropics and alcohol spiritualistic, religious and/or ritualistic significance. Thus giving them a place within the greater social fabric of the society, be it as a divination tool, ceremonial or merely a social lubricant. Several societies, by making these things acceptable for these reasons, also make them taboo at other times or for individuals not qualified in their use for whatever reason, or rather the use of them taboo. I could give examples, but I don't think it's necessary.

For such a multifaceted and intricate issue, I think it would be reductive to portray the dichotomy of drugs and alcohol as being driven by one factor alone.

I think there are simply too many variables to consider to attribute this contrast to any particular force without exhaustive analysis.

That is partly my point. There are and always will be groups within a society whose perception of acceptable behaviour differs from that of the greater society of which they are part. The reasons and examples far too numerous to be listed. The apparent concern of the greater society being how the accepted behaviours of a certain group affect the individual or social structure or moral fabric of said society.
Prohibition of certain things, enforced by or based upon unsound reasoning, causes harm by making them taboo. When this reasoning is questioned and misinformation is required to retain acceptance, or even to 'just' save face, then one must question the validity of such acceptance in the first place.
There is no simple answer, other than unwarranted prohibition is harmful both to civil liberties, or, for our purposes, in a harm reduction sense. (Yes, not going to jail for growing pot is harm reduction people, it's good for me, it's good for you. How Good? Real Good!) But, then, you allready knew that didn't you?

[drix]

That was not Little Git, but me. I was removing self incrimination from the post and showing possible examples. It has no bearing on the subject matter. Could have used festering Aunt, my beatific brother, serious sister, etc, etc

Aaah, understood. Fair enough.

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

It was the above though, said originally posted by drix. It doesn't anymore. I just didn't want to be misquoted/have others opinions taken as mine.

On another issue, the huffing example is not great. Anyone who takes part in such practices places no value on their health. There are severe and very real dangers from huffing. Legality doesn't even come into it.

Couldn't agree more really. So, that's me anyway.

[drix]

You are correct though, people will look down on you if they see you coming out of a headshop, but not if you are coming out of the off-licence (in fact you could have a whole trolley load of alcohol and most would just laugh and say something along the lines of "having a party?").

Why is this?It also plays in reverse. It's much too complex to examine every facet of legality and the principles behind them, the adjustments in a societies collective conscience caused, directly or indirectly by them etc. There are so many factors driving these things. Someone used the nazis and Hitler as an example in an earlier post. Hitler wouldn't have been able to do what he/they did at any old time in any old country, there were lots of factors that led to his acceptance and drove public opinion. Lots. The world over, not just in Europe or even just in Germany.

And guess what? This legal thing does not even apply just to drugs it applies to other things. To you men out there try going out dressed as a woman and tell everyone you like dressing this way. The fact it's legal (certainly is in the UK) will not necessarily make the people around you, who know you are a man, treat you in a non predjudiced way.

Really? And is this right or, in your opinion, wrong? Completely seperate issue, and please lets not get into the perceived rights and wrongs of cross dressing, homophobia, racism, fucking antisemitism and whatever other bigoted little prejudices people and society as a whole drag around with them to whip out at appropriate times. It certainly is interesting, but far too complex for here.
(It serves well to remember that homosexuallity as such was illegal for a long, long time. Still is in some places. Has this a bearing on general perception? Rightly or wrongly, it undeniably ties in with cross dressing, for our purposes at least.)

Magic mushrooms are none of the above. Okay I suppose at the most you could in some people magic mushrooms might be mentally harmful; but that would mainly apply to people with underlying mental health issues. In my experience many people who have a bad trip are in no hurry to take mushrooms again. This is unlike alcohol where I've seen people in a terrible mess: drunk; vomiting etc. They say never again; but guess what? Yes, a week later they are doing it again.

So, are you saying I can eat as many mushrooms as I like? Within reason and an appropriate time frame, and, as long as I have no latent 'mental health issues', I shall be absolutely fine? Again, completely different things working in completely different ways. Ever had A magic mushroom, the liberty cap kind, I mean, just one? Have one, it will do fuck all. Now, have you ever had a drink, the ethanol kind, I mean, just one? Go on, have one...............Think about it. How does this apply? It doesn't.

[Cryptic Concoction]

Git, you have not established in any way that the public perception of alcohol is not influenced by legality. By demonstrating that legality of mushrooms may not be a significant factor in the perception of mushrooms you do not establish the same for alcohol. Even if both are legal, the sole difference between them is not the fact that one is considered a drug and one is not. The perceptions of different drugs are weaved by different factors; they cannot be conflated into one broad category with the assumption that what is true for one is true for another.

You cannot prove that the perception of alcohol is not influenced by legality by citing examples such as cross-dressing and huffing glue, because they are not equatable.

It is simply reductive to state that assert that there is one ultimate deciding factor in public perception without a full analysis of all potential variables, incorporating a holistic perspective.

Not only are the behaviors you cite not equivalent to alcohol, they are purely anecdotal. You cannot support your claim by saying "my uncle said this." You certainly cannot ascertain the nature of the complex network that shapes perception by invoking examples from four isolated incidents.

We can continue this debate, predicating arguments based on the experiences of our "uncles," or we can examine this from an analytical and holistic perspective, incorporating all components of the complex system that constitutes the human experience.

[Lunar Loops]

Societal conditioning and all the factors therein.

As has already been said, legality is a factor, but far from the only one. You are influenced by your peers, people are influenced by their religion. the moral code of the community they grow up in, their parents, their education, etc, etc

Alcohol has the potential to harm the individual and society, but it does not have to be so. Different cultures use alchol in different ways. Likewise other drugs have the potential do harm to the individual and society, but it does not have to be so. This is an important fact that sometimes gets lost in the clamour for legality and equal status amongst the toxins we choose to put in our bodies. It is far too easy to get caught up in the whole "mushrooms are less harmful than alcohol" syndrome and it gets us nowhere.

Success can only surely come from the use of education and truth above all else. If we do not do this then we are no better than the prohibitionists.