Opinions - Pro drug users unwilling to accept bad side effects of drugs?

[Junkhead23]

It occurs to pacman that some pro drug legalisation peeps do not like to acknowledge the fact that certain drugs do have bad side effects and see some of the real side effects as mere propaganda propagated by the government.

It is almost the same as the anti drug lobbyists refusing to believe that drugs have certain positive aspects to them. Now being biased is not a good thing and pacman always like to see both sides of the coin (he is pro legalisation btw)

Pacman believes it is the propaganda that the government spews out that leads some drug users to believe that drugs have no ill effects. Some perceive it as more mere lies being spoon fed to them. This however can be very dangerous indeed.

Pacman also believes that impartiality is the best way forward in regards to legalisation as some may be written off as only seeing the positive side and not the negative side of drug usage.

What do SWIYS think? Do SWIY's think that some are blinded by propaganda and refuse to accept that drugs have a negative impact at times too?

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Intelligent observation
	this post stimulated good discussion
	Great Topic and Valuable to add to Discussion.
	Good idea for a thread. Healthy debate is a good thing!

[dadrone]

Originally Posted by Junkhead23

It occurs to pacman that some pro drug legalisation peeps do not like to acknowledge the fact that certain drugs do have bad side effects and see some of the real side effects as mere propaganda propagated by the government.

It is almost the same as the anti drug lobbyists refusing to believe that drugs have certain positive aspects to them.

SWIM has noticed this also. SWIM is wildly pro-legalization of marijuana but it's weird how anybody who thinks otherwise is somewhat crucified by pro-legalization people (on this board and elsewhere).

Everyone has to accept the FACT that there are bad side effects of most drugs, even marijuana. Not addictive? Maybe it can't be proven addictive but SWIM knows people who never grew up. 30 years old and the only thing that's ever on their mind is their next bong hit.

Think about it...

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by dadrone

SWIM has noticed this also. SWIM is wildly pro-legalization of marijuana but it's weird how anybody who thinks otherwise is somewhat crucified by pro-legalization people (on this board and elsewhere).

I think that's true of marijuana supporters simply due to the fact that the argument against pot is so weak. Anti-marijuana advocates point to silly downsides like schizophrenia which has very little grounding in reality. At least those who are against hard drugs can argue that they're dangerous. Even people who are against psychedelics can claim that they are risky in the hands of people who don't respect them. Marijuana's effects tend to be so benign that any argument against the effects of the drug itself are grossly, often unfairly, exaggerated.

[Junkhead23]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I think that's true of marijuana supporters simply due to the fact that the argument against pot is so weak. Anti-marijuana advocates point to silly downsides like schizophrenia which has very little grounding in reality. At least those who are against hard drugs can argue that they're dangerous. Even people who are against psychedelics can claim that they are risky in the hands of people who don't respect them. Marijuana's effects tend to be so benign that any argument against the effects of the drug itself are grossly, often unfairly, exaggerated.

This was exactly what I meant. Cannabis is not completely benign. Schizophrenia is NOT a silly downside and there are many who end up very paranoid through cannabis use ONLY. They are just too wrapped up in what the drug does to them to realise how it effects SOME others.

Show me some proof that cannabis does not bring out schizophrenia in those predisposed to it

Many arguments against cannabis are untrue however some MAY have some weight to them. It is a shame that in ost studies cannabis is never the sole drug taken so nothing can be proved.

Here is a thread that pacman was talking about cannabis psychosis in http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79701

Now he doesn't know that this certainly exists but he isn't stupid enough to rule it out completely. Some will just not accept that it is possible. His friend was really in a bad way with this and he never took many other substances aside from xtc very rarely. He knows this is anecdotal and for SWIYs he guesses SWIYs have to take with a pinch of salt but believe him he wouldn't lie.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good points

[pinksox]

What do SWIYS think? Do SWIY's think that some are blinded by propaganda and refuse to accept that drugs have a negative impact at times too?

Yeah. ^Agrees. Swimmy has seen some pretty, ummm, "interesting" viewpoints expressed on the matter. The truth is always usually somewhere in the middle. The ones that say cannabis use has never resulted in the users death are particularly mind-blowing to SWIM. As are the ones that would portray cannabis as, "the root of all things evil."

Any mind-altering substance needs to be respected. People who think they drive "just as well or better completely stoned," amaze Swimmy just as much as the alcohol drinkers who would say the same about drinking and driving. All things being equal however, SWIM still believes there are many presently illegal substances/medications that shouldn't be.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by Junkhead23

This was exactly what I meant. Cannabis is not completely benign. Schizophrenia is NOT a silly downside and there are many who end up very paranoid through cannabis use ONLY. They are just too wrapped up in what the drug does to them to realise how it effects SOME others.

It's not completely benign but in terms of being relatively harmless, cannabis is remarkably non-toxic, it isn't physically addictive and it does not provoke violent or dangerous behaviour.

Cannabis may expose schizophrenia in those that are predisposed to it but these people should never smoke weed in the first place (family history and so on). The numbers are also greatly exaggerated. A state of temporary paranoia does not equate schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a serious psychiatric disorder.

Despite the fact that I think schizophrenia is an outside risk when it comes to using cannabis, legalising cannabis can fight this potential problem. Many cannabinoids have anti-psychotic effects. Some people with schizophrenic symptoms use cannabis to keep themselves in order. If a strain of cannabis features a balanced level of cannabinoids CBD and CBN, psychotic risk decreases. By legalising and regulating, vulnerable people will be able to identify strains that suit them instead of risking high-THC black market strains which don't contain enough of the other cannabinoids.

That's the argument most pro-cannabis activists should use. No drug is entirely safe but by advancing knowledge in a truthful way, the dangers can be avoided or removed completely.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	True,valid pro-legalisation argumentation
	excellent post - thank you for your input!

[nick23]

Re Cannabis,pretty much what Nature boy says.It can be harmful,but prohibition actually increases the harm.

Ignoring the potential harm associated with drug use/abuse kinda negates the pro legalization argument.

[duG22]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

Despite the fact that I think schizophrenia is an outside risk when it comes to using cannabis, legalising cannabis can fight this potential problem. Many cannabinoids have anti-psychotic effects. Some people with schizophrenic symptoms use cannabis to keep themselves in order. If a strain of cannabis features a balanced level of cannabinoids CBD and CBN, psychotic risk decreases. By legalising and regulating, vulnerable people will be able to identify strains that suit them instead of risking high-THC black market strains which don't contain enough of the other cannabinoids.

nicley said, swim has schizophrenia and its not from smoking pot. he knows this because he smoked almost everyday for 3 years and then quit for 4 months and ended up getting schizophrenia (he just hears voices tho, not delusional).

swim enjoys weed more now that he has schizo.. funny huh?

[ex-junkie]

Originally Posted by dadrone

SWIM has noticed this also. SWIM is wildly pro-legalization of marijuana but it's weird how anybody who thinks otherwise is somewhat crucified by pro-legalization people (on this board and elsewhere).

Everyone has to accept the FACT that there are bad side effects of most drugs, even marijuana. Not addictive? Maybe it can't be proven addictive but SWIM knows people who never grew up. 30 years old and the only thing that's ever on their mind is their next bong hit.

Think about it...

hmm. swim would hate to see generations of youth growing up in a society where marijuana is socially acceptable (legalizing it is the equivalent of being socially acceptable), smoking shitloads, then being unproductive with their schooling and life even.

fairplay some people function alright on it, but for many it does more harm than good. it causes mental problems, some people get addicted to it, and many people who smoke lots of it are lazy.

maybe marijuana might be good for some in the sense that it inhibits creativity, productivity, with no bad side effects, but you got to think of both sides of the fence.

[El Calico Loco]

I think this tendency is just our manifestation of a more general attitude among the persecuted. One gets enough abuse, so one tends to get defensive about criticism from those outside the persecuted set. It happens to some members of every disliked minority, physical or philosophical. It has to do with ego and identity, I think.


ECL

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

I think this tendency is just our manifestation of a more general attitude among the persecuted. One gets enough abuse, so one tends to get defensive about criticism from those outside the persecuted set. It happens to some members of every disliked minority, physical or philosophical. It has to do with ego and identity, I think.


ECL

I think part of the problem is the prevalence of deontological arguments amongst both sides of the drug policy discourse. Moralistic arguments are much easier to advance than more objective consequentialist analyses based on empirical evidence.

Each side takes a diametrically opposed stance against one another, and in the end the one that is able to shout loudest (the prohibitionists of course) is the one that prevails.

This is one reason why I think a concerted effort to push for the adoption of the harm reduction philosophy / viewpoint on an official level is the best course of action at this time. The concept of human rights, and the view that humans shouldn't be subjected to undue pain and suffering, is widely accepted as a fundamental fact these days. This is partly thanks to the United Nations declaration of human rights and efforts based on or associated with this. Current anti-drug treaties and legislation negates many of the humanitarian aspects the UN is based on, and this needs to be addressed. The criminal justice focused regimes present in most countries at this time won't accept explicit advocation of legalization, and I'm not even sure that full legalization should be something that activists promote right now. Harm reduction has received the most support within the academic community as a guiding philosophy / ideology, and I believe it represents the greatest hope for the global proliferation of a sane and rational means of drug regulation.

After we accept that the welfare of the people is the most important consideration when it comes to narcotics legislation, then zero-tolerance and otherwise retributive policies must be seen as unethical and unsustainable and replaced with more humane legislation. Once we reach this point it will be possible to effectively - and objectively - gather the empirical evidence necessary to develop realistic drug policies that actually protect society from the harmful aspects of drug use while permitting the possibility of beneficial or even recreational / escapist uses.

I think prohibitionists tend to be the most blatantly biased when it comes to the drug policy debate, but both sides could benefit from a great deal more objectivity.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great post, well written and argued

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

I think part of the problem is the prevalence of deontological arguments amongst both sides of the drug policy discourse. Moralistic arguments are much easier to advance than more objective consequentialist analyses based on empirical evidence.

Each side takes a diametrically opposed stance against one another, and in the end the one that is able to shout loudest (the prohibitionists of course) is the one that prevails.

You are probably right, from a practical perspective...but I've never been practical. I tend to reject utilitarian arguments - not in principle, but in practice - simply because they are used (abused?) to support so much that I find hateful, and not just the War on (good) Drugs.

It offends my sense of justice that Cally, a harmless gal who offends no one, can go to prison for no good reason. It offends me that many others have. It baffles me that so many accept it without question. If people will accept that armed men can lock them away for eating the wrong plant, what won't they accept?

(One might be tempted to dismiss this as an emotional / irrational response, and one might be correct...but I see no reason that visceral sensations in my nervous system ought to have any less weight than the visions from my eyes. )

I'm more of a rule-utilitarian than a deontologist, but they amount to much the same thing in practice. Arguing from a consequentialist perspective nearer to act-utilitarianism on the continuum requires one to have some knowledge of the likely consequences of X - trouble is, it also requires that the person being persuaded be as rational and informed. A salesman may lose a debate to a philosopher in front of a crowd of academics, but that's probably the only place he would lose. If one is trying to convince large numbers, I think appeals to morality are likely to be more effective, even if one has to explain exactly why the policy is immoral; such an argument is more likely to be understood (much less accepted), I think, than a mountain of carefully compiled statistics. Art and propaganda are even better.

So, there's my utilitarian argument against utilitarianism. Which is only fair, since you used a utilitarian argument to justify a utilitarian approach. I'll just argue that I think others have a duty to be more like me - that is, to not think that others have a duty to be more like them.

Fortunately, we don't have to choose. There are enough of us, and varied enough in our personalities, that we can appeal to different kinds of people with different approaches. We just have to try and be aware of the ethical worldview (or lack thereof) of our listeners. There's no use arguing utility calculus with an epsilon, tossing Bible quotes at an atheist, or appealing to the altruism of a narcissist.


ECL
(To get the average politician, we're going to have to convince them that decriminalizing drugs is going to make them rich, powerful, and worshipped.)

[Evil GIR]

All drugs have some sort of bad side effects even cannabis but some people simply refuse this and believe its some sort of miracle drug. I think most drugs can be used safely in moderation beyond that they can become damaging.

[SullyGuy]

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change" ~ Thich Nhat Hanh

(thanks to Ilsa for brining this quote to my attention, it has been immensely helpful...)

We simply do not have a true dialogue about drugs, in the media

[bcubed]

Yeah, this tends to annoy Lizard, especially (as noted) amongst marijuana activists.

Pot actvists sometimes remind me of bicycle commuters or jazz afficianados...so convinced their way is far superior to all others that they quickly become tedious once the subject is broached (I mean, I like to ride my bicycle, but am somewhat wary of someone who identifies as "a bicyclist"...I'm sure there parallels to drugs.)

[Sven99]

In a badger's experience, most drug policy activists are happy to admit that there are negatives to drug use, and the idea that they think drugs are not dangerous is usually a misrepresentation of the prohibitionists.

There are many good arguments against prohibition. That drugs are harmless is not one of them. We are not defending drug use. We are attacking failed policy.

Badger has come across cannevangelists, and he's convinced they're very much in the minority - its just they get more attention than the sensible folk.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great observations.

[notts.pirate]

hmmmmmmm, swim knows the risks associated with his 'hobby' swim also knows theres a risk crossing the road or going out or blah blah blah blah

swim has always said tho, if drugs do kill him so be it - its a risk hes prepared to take (apparently)

[Spucky]

In Theory it is very logical that addicted People do not believe into "bad effects",
this is part of their addiction!
It need time to develop to see reason of their disease!
(Cant translate the Word "Krankheits-Einsicht")

[Adultswimmer]

Originally Posted by Spucky

In Theory it is very logical that addicted People do not believe into "bad effects",
this is part of their addiction!
It need time to develop to see reason of their disease!
(Cant translate the Word "Krankheits-Einsicht")

Spucky, that word translates into insight of disease, more or less.

My newt, Sir Isaac, believes that the reason more drugs aren't legalized/decriminalized is because the gov't gets no benefit from that. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed. Drugs would just make more money for the drug companies so the gov't has no incentive.

It's a bunch of BS. Releasing NSAIDs and others that are pulled from the market soon after release due to tragic side effects. One reason is the FDA is on the drug companies' side. Push those new designer drugs out as fast as possible and start making the money. Sir Isaac always looks up the studies and trials on anything new that is prescribed. He was actually Rx a drug where 7 of the 100 studied had died. Not very good odds!

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by Adultswimmer

My newt, Sir Isaac, believes that the reason more drugs aren't legalized/decriminalized is because the gov't gets no benefit from that. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed. Drugs would just make more money for the drug companies so the gov't has no incentive.

That makes no sense - if drugs were legalised they would be regulated and taxed, just as alcohol and tobacco are. Imagine the tax revenue that could be raised from cocaine, heroin, weed, ecstasy...what government wouldn't like to get their hands on that? We're talking about stupendous amounts of money here.

These drugs stay illegal partly for ideological reasons, partly because of the huge political clout of the liquor and cigarette industries which of course see them as rivals and partly because of the (undeniably true) fact that they can be very harmful. Of course, discussion of whether more or less total harm would be caused by them if they were legal is a matter for another thread.

[duG22]

Originally Posted by Adultswimmer

Spucky, that word translates into insight of disease, more or less.

My newt, Sir Isaac, believes that the reason more drugs aren't legalized/decriminalized is because the gov't gets no benefit from that. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed. Drugs would just make more money for the drug companies so the gov't has no incentive.

but they could still tax the drugs that arent legal now.. swim thinks that medical doctors should be given the right to give out drugs..
the reason weed isnt legal is because if it was everyone would grow it in their backyard

[ex-junkie]

^swim wouldnt grow it in her backyard. the last thing she wants to do, is bring up her son to think its ok to take drugs. cigarettes and alcohol are trouble enough as it is, without adding marijuana to the equation.

for so many of us swimmers, marijuana was a gateway drug which lead to more harmful substances. yeah, yeah, yeah, not everybody has a problem with drugs, but those who do are more of a concern to us.

once people try the marijuana high, it fuels their curiosity to try the highs of different drugs. not to mention that peoples inhibitions can go out the window when theyre stoned, because of the detachment from reality. being detached from reality is not a necessity, its just a selfish indulgence that benefits nobody but those who partake.

looking from the outside in, the last thing we need in this world is more drugfucked people. that we can do without.

kthanxbai.

[duG22]

Originally Posted by ex-junkie

looking from the outside in, the last thing we need in this world is more drugfucked people. that we can do without.

kthanxbai.

what if drugs play a bigger part in history than you think. i mean why spend the majority of your life in the defult mode of cognition.

read some of this

So much for the theory that the Church of the Middle Ages didn't know the Eucharist was visionary plants, a theory that is all too favored by the over-extreme rabidly anti-Christianity entheogen scholars who wish to tell a story of 2000 long years of complete darkness and suppression. Against that false story driven too much by black-and-white moral tale or counter-moralizing that overshoots its mark and swings the pendulum too far, the evidence forces us to assume that the Church to a significant extent was conscious that the Eucharist was visionary plants.

So it is time to go back and rewrite the story that the entheogen scholars have been trying to tell so far. The moral is, as I have always pointed out, the way to win the battle is not to pose it as a good-guys vs. bad-guys us-vs.-them high-school vulgar oversimplistic battle. The way to win is to prove that Christianity has always really been based on the use of visionary plants, even within the official tradition.

Basically, the bishops (some of the important bishops and others) knew and understood full well that the Eucharist was visionary plants: a good number of bishops knew it, a good number of monks/religious knew it, a good number of lay knew it. This wrecks and makes hash out of the too-accustomed story of the entheogen scholars that the big bad Church was the opposite of entheogen use.

[Euthanatos93420]

Originally Posted by ex-junkie

^swim wouldnt grow it in her backyard. the last thing she wants to do, is bring up her son to think its ok to take drugs. cigarettes and alcohol are trouble enough as it is, without adding marijuana to the equation.

It has been consitantly and scientifically shown that cigarettes and alcohol are more addictive, cause more physical & psychological damage & addicition from regular use. Alcohol is one of the few substances whose withdrawal can kill a person. I could go on...

for so many of us swimmers, marijuana was a gateway drug which lead to more harmful substances. yeah, yeah, yeah, not everybody has a problem with drugs, but those who do are more of a concern to us.

It's appalling that we still have to explain this to people. It has been shown by accurate context and perspective when analysing that possesed data that the gateway drug theory is false. Bullshit. Propaganda.

If you see lots of 'hardcore junkies' or whatever you want to call them and they all say that marijuana was their first illicit drug then you might be persuaded to subscribe to this theory. The truth is that simply because marijuana is easy to get that people who inclined to abuse narcotics or stimulants simply find marijuana first.

It might even be accurate to say that most cocaine/meth/heroin users used to pot before they used their currect DOC.

This STILL is NOT evidence that supports the gateway drug theory. ALL it says is that those who use coke/amps/narcotics try weed first.

It says NOTHING about the statistics of the actions of people who try or regularly use marijuana.

It's a bit of logical slight of hand but when you see things for what they are you understand why these observations in no way provide any form of evidence supporting the 'gateway drug' theory.




First of all I will reitterate the obvious: That for most of those people, they used tobacco or alcohol before they used pot or anything else.

once people try the marijuana high, it fuels their curiosity to try the highs of different drugs.

No it doesn't. Many people have used marijuana and never considering using another drug recreationally.

not to mention that peoples inhibitions can go out the window when theyre stoned,

This is also not true. It is true of alcohol but the general consensus is that while your wit may be slower on indica strains it does not affect your ability to think rationally, just the speed at which you do so. Which in fact, leads to a higher rational functioning ability because you give yourself more time to consider the situation at hand.

because of the detachment from reality. being detached from reality is not a necessity, its just a selfish indulgence that benefits nobody but those who partake.

Yes, so then let us burn all fiction novels, video games, art, board games (as they can be considered a fictional universe not congruent with reality).

I mean, really. Who the fuck died and made you God judge and jury about what level of deviation from 'reality' is 'acceptable.' Furthermore, please define reality. Even the greatest scientific minds cannot. They speculate and theorize but we do not know the nature of reality.

Reality is as you define it. A consensual vision.

looking from the outside in, the last thing we need in this world is more drugfucked people. that we can do without.

So lets fucking legalize them already and institute real social engineering solutions to deal with these things we find distasteful about our society rather than pretending they only exist and cause problems for the people who are 'morally' corrupted.

kthanxbai.

Euthanatos93420 added 6 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by Routemaster Flash

That makes no sense - if drugs were legalised they would be regulated and taxed, just as alcohol and tobacco are. Imagine the tax revenue that could be raised from cocaine, heroin, weed, ecstasy...what government wouldn't like to get their hands on that? We're talking about stupendous amounts of money here.

Sure prohibition might be a moralistically based. But I rather think they already have their hands on that money and that prohibition is profit driven rather than moralistically driven. It's plausable, can be shown in history and the moralistic shit is just a propaganda for suckers.


-------------

Because in the end the argument for legalisation had jack shit to do with the effects/side-effects of drugs.

[Fango]

SWIM is pro-legalization of cannabis, but cannot help but feel that protests are futile, and that the bad media around it doesn't even matter.

There is an age old stigma that users of any prohibited drug are "bad people" and this wont change. The way swim sees it, the only people that are pro-legalization are smokers or ex-smokers, or those that care enough to clue themselves in. This is a minority demographic, fighting against powers much larger than themselves.

As for the cannavangelists out there (love the phrase btw SWISven), they are giving it a bad name, but they are the guys with the personality that loves a good protest, so those are the ones we see in the media.

At the end of the day, SWIM thinks that the real decisions should be down to the scientists, doctors and psychologist to weigh up the pro's and con's and then advise the goverment on what to do based on the test results.

oh... hang on... they did.

Bit of reading for anyone that has not already read it.

http://deoxy.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty,...it_of_Cannabis - 10 studies the goverment wishes it didnt fund
http://www.ukcia.org/research/ns/intro.htm - New Scientist Marijuana Report 1998
http://tech.mit.edu/V126/N19/19long4.html - Contradicting Scientists, FDA Says Marijuana Has No Medical Value

Personally, SWIM does not think any other drugs should be legalized, they just arent safe enough, so to legalize it would be impossible, and foolish. If Alcohol and Tobbacco were illegal, then SWIM would say that MJ should be illegal too! But there is a legal president set, where two damaging products are legal, and one that is arguably less damaging is illegal.

SWIM is sorry for ranting.