RE: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 5:10:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Geesh, Chris! Add me to your list of New Englander's who grew up in the

> late

> 60's, early 70's and decided pot sucked then along with other drugs and

> alcohol too.

But you tried it right? So far the only two people I've ever met who haven't

smoked pot are my grandparents, and if you count internet friends, the two who

piped up today.

For the record, I've never dropped acid.

> Had and still have a family to bring up.

I dont see any conflict. Smoking pot six times a day is no good for you, but

smoking at the end of the night or on weekends hardly interferes with one's

ability to raise a family. Especially when the kids are older, since you'd have

something fun to do together.

Live in what's locally

> considered the hippie town where I've had lengthy discussions with quite a

> few who agree some good changes may have happened in the 60's and 70's if

> all the illegal substances of the time weren't used and didn't become the

> tool to divide and conquer. Hindsight.

While I admittedly wasn't there, I don't think drugs were used as an outside

tool. Some revolutionaries believed LSD to be integral to socialism.

" It was Lerner who also made me understand that drugs were far more central

to the consciousness of the Movement than I had realized. On discovering that

I had never taken LSD, he gave me an incredulous look. We were standing in

the middle of Shattuck Avenue after a protest and, in the same urgent tone he

had used to insist on Berkley's significance, he said: " You *have* to take LSD.

Until you've dropped acid, you don't know what socialism is. " " --Horowitz,

_Radical Son_, p176.

> Knowing what I know about nutrition now it doesn't surprise me that there

> isn't less use now than then.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's more, and I've read there is.

Food quality and nutrition has gone downhill

> since, especially in school systems.With the expectations, pace of life now

> to then even its almost a given that nearly everyone will have lower impulse

> control and need more escapism.

I think you're really exaggerating the implications of drugs use. Drugs are

fun, and that's pretty much all there is to it. Kind of like video games.

Really wonder about the opioids in gluten

> grains, which affect everyone on yet not known levels. It's sad or is it

> SAD?

I wonder about opioids, since one of Price's healthy groups used coca. The

opioids didn't seem to harm them. And many of Price's groups drank milk, which

contains opioids.

Opioids are comforting-- especially in opium ;-)

> Think your generalization is specific to your age group possibly and not

> indicative of everyone else in the area.

That's probably true. Does anyone know any 18-24 year olds who don't smoke

pot? (I don't, and I know there are some, but not many). But I find that most

adults do to, like all my friends' parents growing up, or adults at work.

Heard interesting data this week.

> 80% of drug users are white and 80% of prison population for drugs are

> black.

Well it's good to see public justice works so well.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 6:16:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mfjewett@... writes:

> So lives in a 5-college MA town, huh? If I'm guessing correctly,

> nice to know that the standard college fare hasn't changed since my days at

> BU

Oh, no. If I did, I'd explain it away as a college phenomenon. I went to

Umass for a few years, but I live in West Brookfield, a tiny town in the middle

of nowhere.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 6:42:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> Oh for god's sake, Chris. You've gone over the edge here for me. This is a

> list that scorns common foods that most people eat every day of their lives,

> and you say " drugs are fun and that's all there is to it " ? That is a load of

> absolute crap. Just as I choose not to put transfats or other harmful " foods "

> or enfoods into my body, I also choose not to use drugs. To suggest

> they are nothing more than FUN is either disingenuous or ignorant. I honestly

> don't know which it is.

I'm very worried this is going to be taken the wrong way, but I don't mean it

to be offensive: given that you've admittedly never *done* drugs, I don't see

how you're in a position to judge.

Granted, you may have had bad experience with family or friends, or seen

people in bad situations in some sort of counseling capacity, etc, and so I

don't

mean to suggest that because you don't do drugs you have no experience.

However, just because some drugs in some abuse circumstances are harmful,

doesn't mean drugs are inherently harmful-- only their reckless use. All sorts

of things that are fun, such as, say, snowboarding, can be very dangerous as

well, if not done with care.

> I think that people should do what they want to do. I'm not one for

> legislating " shoulds, " be they about food or drugs or sex or booze or

whatever. This

> is NOT about laws or the war on drugs, which I'm completely against. But

> drugs have harmed and killed many people, including many that I loved.

I'm sorry to hear that, but at the same time, there are many things people

die from, and Wanita and I were discussing specifically pot and LSD, neither of

which, to my knowledge, have every killed anyone.

I suspect some drugs are much more harmful than they are beneficial, but

there are a pretty wide variety of drugs, which, when used responsibly are

relatively harmless.

> I've seen drugs destroy creativity, initiative, enthusiasm, and peace of

mind.

That would include alcohol as well, yet most people realize that alcohol is a

drug that is relatively harmless when used reponsible, and can even be

beneficial.

In > particular, most people I know who frequently smoke pot spend much

> more time rambling on and on in what I presume they think is a profound manner

> about all the wonderful ideas they have, than spending the time or energy to

> actually follow through on these thoughts or ideas.

What do you consider " frequent " ? This is a massive distortion of what

smoking pot does. My uncle smokes pot every day, and has successively raised a

family, sustained a marriage, risen himself to the number-one salesman of a very

large company, and has a yearly income exceeding $200,000. Every single person

I work with, with the possible exception of some 2% of them smoke pot on a

regular or semi-regular basis, some of whom are in college (and doing well),

some of whom responsibly are raising families. Many of my teachers in college

smoked pot, and were obviously successful, sometimes having families, and in any

case being good teachers. It's just categorically false that regular pot use

leads to apathy or inability.

For that matter, I've smoked pot hundreds of times and seem to be doing

reasonably well.

All you have to do to get a nice healthy aversion to pot, is NOT smoke it

and spend

> the evening with a bunch of folks who are.

Aside from being entirely subjective, I don't think this means much. If I'm

sober, I find drunk people annoying. If I'm drunk, drunk people are fun. You

could say this about virtually any state-of-consciousness-altering activity.

Again, they have a perfect right in my mind to smoke pot. But to suggest

it's " fun "

> and nothing more demonstrates a pretty peculiar idea of " fun. "

Which is why you don't smoke, I guess. But I'm pretty sure that people say,

ages 16-40 are more likely to smoke pot than not, so it's a pretty widely held

idea of fun.

And that's POT, the most harmless of all illegal drugs! You think COCAINE is

> nothing but fun? Heroin? If you really believe that, you're so steeped in

> ignorance you really have no business even having an opinion on this issue. If

> you're just trolling for a discussion, this one just cuts way too close to

> home for me.

We were talking about pot and LSD. I think cocaine can be used safely

recreationally, but I think it's enormously dangerous compared to pot. Regular

use

is bound to cause major problems. I've never known anyone to do heroin and

not get themselves into trouble, so I think I'd rule it out.

> I guess I just don't see what's so " fun " about, oh, I don't know, a man in

> the hospital dying of AIDS who has his dealer bring him coke. A girl dying of

> an OD in a sleeping bag on the floor at a party after a Dead Kennedy's

> concert in San Francisco - my girlfriend and I were the last people who ever

spoke

> to her, and let me tell you, when her mom called to find out what her little

> girl's last minutes were like, that was SUCH a fun phone call! Wish I could

> deal with those every day!

Yes, and what of people who ski face-first into trees? Look, I'm not saying

drugs can't be harmful. But tragedies can occur in almost any exciting

activity. If you want to have fun, you take certain risks. Some of them aren't

worth it. Dabbling in cocaine probably isn't worth the risk, especially if you

don't know yourself to be stable and responsible. Trying to be Evil Canneival

(sp?) probably isn't worth it to most people either. But modifying either

field-- pulling trix on a BMX, snowboarding, smoking pot, etc can result in a

happy medium between fun and risk.

Not to mention seeing so many truly awe-inspiring bands implode from the

drug

> use of the band members - I used to LOVE having to babysit the band's

> drummer for a day before each gig, in the hope she wouldn't be sitting in the

> corner of her room with a needle hanging out of her arm when she was supposed

to

> be playing the drums. And one of my favorite humorous memories is a nineteen

> year old guy I knew who started having paranoid delusions from too much coke,

> who killed himself. At nineteen, isn't that hysterically funny? And how

> about those babies born to drug addicted mothers - such a hoot, ya know? A

real

> laugh riot, the way they scream and scream and just don't stop.

> Yeah, just like a video game.

Christie, all of these things are horrible. But people can drive

irresponsible, drink alcohol irresponsibly, pull stunts irresponsibly, play

sports

irresponsibly, and hurt themselves in so many ways. That doesn't make any of

those

activities inherently harmful.

And the average person's use of pot is so far off on the other side of the

spectrum from these tragedies that this is essentially a caricature of drug use.

My cousin nearly killed himself drinking alcohol and had his stomach pumped

in time. That doesn't negate the fact that most people use alcohol, most

people do it responsibly, and most people benefit much more from alcohol than

they

are harmed by it.

Just the same with drugs, many people abuse drugs, and some drugs are

particularly nasty and tend to lend themselves to abuse. This results in many

tragedies, like the ones you told of, and I don't want to see this happen, and I

empathize with anyone who has to live with it. But these cases hardly represent

the majority of drug use. Some 70% of Americans have used illegal drugs, and

I think this number is growing with my generation, and most of these people

aren't dead, nor living in a hellacious tragedy.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 7:38:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> Acid, I don't know - it just never appealed to me. But until I got clean

> and sober 20 years ago, I used a wide variety of drugs, including shooting

> heroin and speed. So guess again.

Fair enough; I didn't know.

> >> Look, I'm not saying

> drugs can't be harmful. <<

>

> But that's what you DID say. You said they were NOTHING BUT FUN. Do you now

> get what pissed me off?

Ok, it was a miscommunication then. I apologize for the careless words.

Wanita and I were talking about pot and acid, and that's what I had in my mind.

I

was responding specifically to the idea that drugs were a form of escapism

resulting from poor nutrition, social arrangements, etc.

> The rest of what you said in this response I mostly agree with. But it's

> not what you started out saying. And you did NOT limit your comment to pot and

> acid, you said DRUGS ARE NOTHING BUT FUN.

Again, I apologize for the careless words; it didn't occur to me how easily

they could be misinterpreted.

Essentially what I'm saying, and apparently we agree, is that the vast

majority of casual drug use is a form of recreation equivalent to any other form

of

recreation, all of which have dangers. Drugs can be used irresponsibly, and

some drugs lend themselves towards such use more easily than others. Drug

*abuse* is awful. But drugs per se are not.

Agreed?

If we do agree, we do still have very different perceptions about how

pot-usage affects people, based on our different experiences. I just know too

many

successful, drug-using people to believe that drugs make people apathetic,

including my pot-smoking friend who I work with, who has two masters and almost

a

PhD, or all the acid-head engineering majors I worked with last year, some of

whom just graduated with a BS and a $50K job off the bat and grad school paid

for by the company. Lots of studying during the week; drinking, acid and

mushrooms on the weekends.

By the way, Forbes magazine ran an article a couple years ago on a study that

found that people who continue drinking on the weekends after college are

considerably more successful at advancing in their career. They (jokingly?)

suggested that the alcohol killed off the " weak " brain cells first, and brain

cells are only as good as the slowest buffalo in the herd. It's probably a

social

thing though.

In any case, the point is that successful people tend to use recreational

drugs, whether it is alcohol, or something else, and their success demonstrates

that drugs are only harmful when abused.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 7:47:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> How about the person driving under the influence of one of your " harmless "

> drugs who runs a stop sign, or does something else stupid and wipes a

> family, or even a portion of one?

> Would you still say that those drugs never killed anyone?

> You have your ideas and I have mine so I'm not going to debate this but I

> would like to know your answers.

Judith,

When I said drugs were harmless, while that is, literally, false, a more

reasonable interpretation of my meaning would be that drugs are harmless when

used

responsibly, like anything else.

Driving under the influence of any drug that impairs your driving skills is

both irresponsbile use of the drug, and irresponsible use of the vehicle. The

irresponsibility kills. The vehicle and the drug both bear equal

responsibility, as both were used with a comparable lack of responsibility.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>But you tried it right? So far the only two people I've ever met who haven't

>smoked pot are my grandparents, and if you count internet friends, the two who

>piped up today.

You can add me to your list of folks who haven't tried it. I SMELLED it

in the restroom all thru high school and thought it reeked. I did

inhale once from a cigarette and thought that reeked too.

However, I did burn incense in the '70s, and still do, occasionally.

I also smoke fish and occasionally turkeys. ;--)

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

At 05:49 PM 2/6/04 EST, you wrote:

>> Geesh, Chris! Add me to your list of New Englander's who grew up in the

>> late

>> 60's, early 70's and decided pot sucked then along with other drugs and

>> alcohol too.

>

>But you tried it right? So far the only two people I've ever met who haven't

>smoked pot are my grandparents, and if you count internet friends, the two

who

>piped up today.

I'm counting 14 off the top of my head, gimme a few more minutes to think

and I'm guessing I can triple that number at least.

>

> Live in what's locally

>> considered the hippie town where I've had lengthy discussions with quite a

>> few who agree some good changes may have happened in the 60's and 70's if

>> all the illegal substances of the time weren't used and didn't become the

>> tool to divide and conquer. Hindsight.

>

>While I admittedly wasn't there, I don't think drugs were used as an outside

>tool. Some revolutionaries believed LSD to be integral to socialism.

>

> " It was Lerner who also made me understand that drugs were far more central

>to the consciousness of the Movement than I had realized. On discovering

that

>I had never taken LSD, he gave me an incredulous look. We were standing in

>the middle of Shattuck Avenue after a protest and, in the same urgent tone

he

>had used to insist on Berkley's significance, he said: " You *have* to take

LSD.

>Until you've dropped acid, you don't know what socialism is. " " --Horowitz,

>_Radical Son_, p176.

*snort* ... no pun intended.

>Food quality and nutrition has gone downhill

>> since, especially in school systems.With the expectations, pace of life now

>> to then even its almost a given that nearly everyone will have lower

impulse

>> control and need more escapism.

>

>I think you're really exaggerating the implications of drugs use. Drugs are

>fun, and that's pretty much all there is to it. Kind of like video games.

Right. Fun = escapism. I don't think you're disagreeing at all

between the two of you. Although I'll note that regular drug use, in my

experience, DOES also lead to lesser impulse control. This from the

people that I DO know that smoke pot or do other things on a regular basis,

including alcohol. Habits, ya know.

>> Think your generalization is specific to your age group possibly and not

>> indicative of everyone else in the area.

>

>That's probably true. Does anyone know any 18-24 year olds who don't smoke

>pot? (I don't, and I know there are some, but not many). But I find that

most

>adults do to, like all my friends' parents growing up, or adults at work.

In my own age group, I don't associate a lot on a regular basis with 18-24

year olds, so my sampling is limited - however, I can point to three out of

six (on a fast count) that have never smoked pot nor done other drugs, and

two out of the remaining three tried it but decided it just wasn't for

them. The remaining one would probably drop acid any chance he got,

although he doesn't do any other drugs.

So lives in a 5-college MA town, huh? If I'm guessing correctly,

nice to know that the standard college fare hasn't changed since my days at

BU

MFJ

It's finally happened. I'm slightly mad. Oh dear. ~Queen

[Guest guest]

>> Drugs are

fun, and that's pretty much all there is to it. <<

Oh for god's sake, Chris. You've gone over the edge here for me. This is a list

that scorns common foods that most people eat every day of their lives, and you

say " drugs are fun and that's all there is to it " ? That is a load of absolute

crap. Just as I choose not to put transfats or other harmful " foods " or

enfoods into my body, I also choose not to use drugs. To suggest they are

nothing more than FUN is either disingenuous or ignorant. I honestly don't know

which it is.

I think that people should do what they want to do. I'm not one for legislating

" shoulds, " be they about food or drugs or sex or booze or whatever. This is NOT

about laws or the war on drugs, which I'm completely against. But drugs have

harmed and killed many people, including many that I loved. I've seen drugs

destroy creativity, initiative, enthusiasm, and peace of mind. In particular,

most people I know who frequently smoke pot spend much more time rambling on and

on in what I presume they think is a profound manner about all the wonderful

ideas they have, than spending the time or energy to actually follow through on

these thoughts or ideas. All you have to do to get a nice healthy aversion to

pot, is NOT smoke it and spend the evening with a bunch of folks who are. Again,

they have a perfect right in my mind to smoke pot. But to suggest it's " fun " and

nothing more demonstrates a pretty peculiar idea of " fun. " And that's POT, the

most harmless of all illegal drugs! You think COCAINE is nothing but fun?

Heroin? If you really believe that, you're so steeped in ignorance you really

have no business even having an opinion on this issue. If you're just trolling

for a discussion, this one just cuts way too close to home for me.

I guess I just don't see what's so " fun " about, oh, I don't know, a man in the

hospital dying of AIDS who has his dealer bring him coke. A girl dying of an OD

in a sleeping bag on the floor at a party after a Dead Kennedy's concert in San

Francisco - my girlfriend and I were the last people who ever spoke to her, and

let me tell you, when her mom called to find out what her little girl's last

minutes were like, that was SUCH a fun phone call! Wish I could deal with those

every day! Not to mention seeing so many truly awe-inspiring bands implode from

the drug use of the band members - I used to LOVE having to babysit the band's

drummer for a day before each gig, in the hope she wouldn't be sitting in the

corner of her room with a needle hanging out of her arm when she was supposed to

be playing the drums. And one of my favorite humorous memories is a nineteen

year old guy I knew who started having paranoid delusions from too much coke,

who killed himself. At nineteen, isn't that hysterically funny? And how about

those babies born to drug addicted mothers - such a hoot, ya know? A real laugh

riot, the way they scream and scream and just don't stop.

Yeah, just like a video game.

Christie

[Guest guest]

I have personally never smoked pot or anything else for that matter,

and I know MANY who don't, including those in the 18-24 age bracket.

~ Fern

Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

> That's probably true. Does anyone know any 18-24 year olds who

don't smoke

> pot? (I don't, and I know there are some, but not many). But I

find that most

> adults do to, like all my friends' parents growing up, or adults at

work.

[Guest guest]

yeah - guess it just depends on the crowd you run with.

Nanette

> Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

> I have personally never smoked pot or anything else for that matter,

> and I know MANY who don't, including those in the 18-24 age bracket.

>

> ~ Fern

>

>

>

> Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

> > That's probably true. Does anyone know any 18-24 year olds who

> don't smoke

> > pot? (I don't, and I know there are some, but not many). But I

> find that most

> > adults do to, like all my friends' parents growing up, or adults at

> work.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The last few times we ate at Old Country Buffet before they went to all

no-smoking the line was out the door and the smoking section was empty.

Finally the non-smokers decided there was no one there to pollute them and

began to fill the seats.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Fern [mailto:readnwrite@...]

I have personally never smoked pot or anything else for that matter,

and I know MANY who don't, including those in the 18-24 age bracket.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

>> given that you've admittedly never *done* drugs, I don't see

how you're in a position to judge. <<

I said I never smoked pot or dropped acid. I never said I didn't do drugs. I

did. In fact, those are just about the only two I DIDN'T do. Pot mostly because

smoking has always disgusted me utterly. Even when my brother and I were babies,

my mom said we used to glare at anyone smoking near us. I hate incense, too. I

simply have an aversion to anything burning.

Acid, I don't know - it just never appealed to me. But until I got clean and

sober 20 years ago, I used a wide variety of drugs, including shooting heroin

and speed. So guess again.

>> Look, I'm not saying

drugs can't be harmful. <<

But that's what you DID say. You said they were NOTHING BUT FUN. Do you now get

what pissed me off?

The rest of what you said in this response I mostly agree with. But it's not

what you started out saying. And you did NOT limit your comment to pot and acid,

you said DRUGS ARE NOTHING BUT FUN.

Christie

[Guest guest]

How about the person driving under the influence of one of your " harmless "

drugs who runs a stop sign, or does something else stupid and wipes a

family, or even a portion of one?

Would you still say that those drugs never killed anyone?

You have your ideas and I have mine so I'm not going to debate this but I

would like to know your answers.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

I'm sorry to hear that, but at the same time, there are many things people

die from, and Wanita and I were discussing specifically pot and LSD, neither

of

which, to my knowledge, have every killed anyone.

[Guest guest]

> But you tried it right? So far the only two people I've ever met who

haven't

> smoked pot are my grandparents, and if you count internet friends, the two

who

> piped up today.

Tried it and didn't need the help sleeping or eating. Does that mean I don't

get elected? Forgot substance abuse election went by. My parents haven't

which means my children, one your age, one older, one younger have

grandparents who didn't.

>

> For the record, I've never dropped acid.

Me, either..is this truth or dare?

>

> I dont see any conflict. Smoking pot six times a day is no good for you,

but

> smoking at the end of the night or on weekends hardly interferes with

one's

> ability to raise a family. Especially when the kids are older, since you'd

have

> something fun to do together.

Costs money thats needed for the roof over the children's heads and the food

in their mouth. Don't find pleasure in any of it or need any of it to make

the fun we're beginning to have with the last and youngest now in high

school. Didn't forget how. :-) Think it was Deepak Chopra who feels those

that need something so they can have fun don't know how to have fun.

>

> While I admittedly wasn't there, I don't think drugs were used as an

outside

> tool. Some revolutionaries believed LSD to be integral to socialism.

>

> " It was Lerner who also made me understand that drugs were far more

central

> to the consciousness of the Movement than I had realized. On discovering

that

> I had never taken LSD, he gave me an incredulous look. We were standing

in

> the middle of Shattuck Avenue after a protest and, in the same urgent tone

he

> had used to insist on Berkley's significance, he said: " You *have* to take

LSD.

> Until you've dropped acid, you don't know what socialism is. "

--Horowitz,

> _Radical Son_, p176.

The " Oh man, no one can think or be peace and love without the acid "

justification. So is egalitarianism, what socialism failed to imitate only

perceivable from an LSD hallucination? Have found an interesting perspective

I've been reading this week on the total 360 humans have taken in their

history on the hierarchy pyramid. The !Kung for one. Will post tomorrow if

time permits.

>

> > Knowing what I know about nutrition now it doesn't surprise me that

there

> > isn't less use now than then.

>

> I wouldn't be surprised if there's more, and I've read there is.

>

>

> I think you're really exaggerating the implications of drugs use. Drugs

are

> fun, and that's pretty much all there is to it. Kind of like video games.

Thats dopamine that reminds people of what was previous pleasure.

> Does anyone know any 18-24 year olds who don't smoke

> pot? (I don't, and I know there are some, but not many).

22 year old stepdaughter chooses not to smoke pot and has gone out for

drinks from college not even a half dozen times since turning 21.

If you don't agree, I have mother's perogative.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 8:15:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> LOL! I actually agree with here.

Now THAT is cause for celebration. Roll it up, Gene! <g>

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 8:39:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Agreed.

>

> But the drug has to share the guilt.

No guilt lies with the drug per se, but with the specific use or misuse of

the drug. For example, if I was playing a hand-held video game while driving, I

might kill someone. No reasonable person would blame video games per se, but

common sense would condemn the practice of driving and playing video games

simultaneously.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 9:14:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> But I think you actually meant to isolate the behavioral aspects of drug

> use here... correct me if I'm wrong?

Yes, pretty much. I was addressing whether the use of drugs was a

pathological " escapism " or a valid recreational activity. I think it's a valid

recreational activity.

That said, I think many drugs, physiologically, are relatively benign if they

aren't abused. I think drugs of various kinds have been used for thousands

of years, and even in Price's healthy subjects.

In my own experience, I've found that quitting tobacco and pot had virtually

no positive effect on my health at all, whereas quitting Coca Cola and cutting

sugar had a massive benefit to my respiratory system (when I continued

smoking a pack of Marlboro's a day). Cutting out animal products destroyed my

body

like no drug ever could.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 9:45:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> That's ridiculous. Does someone need to have eaten PHOs to conclude

> they're bad? And sugar? Are you dismissing science entirely and saying

> that subjective experience should be our only guide?

I thought we were discussing the behavioral aspects of drug use, not the

physiological. Someone needs phsiological evidence when judging the

physiological

harm, but someone needs direct experience when judging the psychological and

behavioral effects, and juding its validity as a past time.

>

> >However, just because some drugs in some abuse circumstances are harmful,

> >doesn't mean drugs are inherently harmful-- only their reckless use. All

> >sorts

> >of things that are fun, such as, say, snowboarding, can be very dangerous

> as

> >well, if not done with care.

>

> The difference is that some drugs are highly addictive, meaning that over

> time, it's difficult or even impossible for most or perhaps even all people

> to continue using them " responsibly " .

Only if they are used irresponsibly. Most of the people I grew up with used

coke recreationally on occasions, and none of them ended up coke addicts. For

example, the occasional addition of cocaine to pot isn't going to make you a

coke addict. Heroin seems to be kind of nasty, but my experience is extremely

limited. I've never done it, but moreover, I know very few people who have.

I don't think I'd say any of them used it " responsibly.

But again, Wanita and I were discussing the more mainstream drugs like pot

and LSD. There's really no addictiveness to these drugs, except in certain

individuals.

>

> >Wanita and I were discussing specifically pot and LSD, neither of

> >which, to my knowledge, have every killed anyone.

>

> My understanding is that pot smoking is worse for the lungs than tobacco,

> and though this says nothing about overall numbers, I do know there have

> been people who died due to LSD trips -- walking off buildings, into

> traffic, etc.

Well fine, but I'm sure that's happened to people from sleep walking too.

Maybe you can find someone here or there who did such, but that's a statistical

absurdity. Maybe with large amounts of PCP it might happen, but with LSD the

chance is negligible.

Chris

[Guest guest]

LOL! I actually agree with here. Pot smoking can be fun, but I would

argue that its potential benefits go beyond that. It can really cause you to

be creative and insightful. Of course, it can also cause you to think you

are when you're not. The trick is to learn to use it 'responsibly'. I admit

that I used it way too much for years, but I don't attribute that to pot

being 'bad', I attribute that to my own weaknesses. I hardly ever smoke

anymore, but I can't say that I don't enjoy it at times.

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:10:30 EST

Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

In a message dated 2/6/04 6:42:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> Oh for god's sake, Chris. You've gone over the edge here for me. This is a

> list that scorns common foods that most people eat every day of their lives,

> and you say " drugs are fun and that's all there is to it " ? That is a load of

> absolute crap. Just as I choose not to put transfats or other harmful " foods "

> or enfoods into my body, I also choose not to use drugs. To suggest

> they are nothing more than FUN is either disingenuous or ignorant. I honestly

> don't know which it is.

I'm very worried this is going to be taken the wrong way, but I don't mean

it

to be offensive: given that you've admittedly never *done* drugs, I don't

see

how you're in a position to judge.

Granted, you may have had bad experience with family or friends, or seen

people in bad situations in some sort of counseling capacity, etc, and so I

don't

mean to suggest that because you don't do drugs you have no experience.

However, just because some drugs in some abuse circumstances are harmful,

doesn't mean drugs are inherently harmful-- only their reckless use. All

sorts

of things that are fun, such as, say, snowboarding, can be very dangerous as

well, if not done with care.

> I think that people should do what they want to do. I'm not one for

> legislating " shoulds, " be they about food or drugs or sex or booze or

whatever. This

> is NOT about laws or the war on drugs, which I'm completely against. But

> drugs have harmed and killed many people, including many that I loved.

I'm sorry to hear that, but at the same time, there are many things people

die from, and Wanita and I were discussing specifically pot and LSD, neither

of

which, to my knowledge, have every killed anyone.

I suspect some drugs are much more harmful than they are beneficial, but

there are a pretty wide variety of drugs, which, when used responsibly are

relatively harmless.

> I've seen drugs destroy creativity, initiative, enthusiasm, and peace of

mind.

That would include alcohol as well, yet most people realize that alcohol is

a

drug that is relatively harmless when used reponsible, and can even be

beneficial.

In > particular, most people I know who frequently smoke pot spend much

> more time rambling on and on in what I presume they think is a profound manner

> about all the wonderful ideas they have, than spending the time or energy to

> actually follow through on these thoughts or ideas.

What do you consider " frequent " ? This is a massive distortion of what

smoking pot does. My uncle smokes pot every day, and has successively

raised a

family, sustained a marriage, risen himself to the number-one salesman of a

very

large company, and has a yearly income exceeding $200,000. Every single

person

I work with, with the possible exception of some 2% of them smoke pot on a

regular or semi-regular basis, some of whom are in college (and doing well),

some of whom responsibly are raising families. Many of my teachers in

college

smoked pot, and were obviously successful, sometimes having families, and in

any

case being good teachers. It's just categorically false that regular pot

use

leads to apathy or inability.

For that matter, I've smoked pot hundreds of times and seem to be doing

reasonably well.

All you have to do to get a nice healthy aversion to pot, is NOT smoke it

and spend

> the evening with a bunch of folks who are.

Aside from being entirely subjective, I don't think this means much. If I'm

sober, I find drunk people annoying. If I'm drunk, drunk people are fun.

You

could say this about virtually any state-of-consciousness-altering activity.

Again, they have a perfect right in my mind to smoke pot. But to suggest

it's " fun "

> and nothing more demonstrates a pretty peculiar idea of " fun. "

Which is why you don't smoke, I guess. But I'm pretty sure that people say,

ages 16-40 are more likely to smoke pot than not, so it's a pretty widely

held

idea of fun.

And that's POT, the most harmless of all illegal drugs! You think COCAINE is

> nothing but fun? Heroin? If you really believe that, you're so steeped in

> ignorance you really have no business even having an opinion on this issue. If

> you're just trolling for a discussion, this one just cuts way too close to

> home for me.

We were talking about pot and LSD. I think cocaine can be used safely

recreationally, but I think it's enormously dangerous compared to pot.

Regular use

is bound to cause major problems. I've never known anyone to do heroin and

not get themselves into trouble, so I think I'd rule it out.

> I guess I just don't see what's so " fun " about, oh, I don't know, a man in

> the hospital dying of AIDS who has his dealer bring him coke. A girl dying of

> an OD in a sleeping bag on the floor at a party after a Dead Kennedy's

> concert in San Francisco - my girlfriend and I were the last people who ever

spoke

> to her, and let me tell you, when her mom called to find out what her little

> girl's last minutes were like, that was SUCH a fun phone call! Wish I could

> deal with those every day!

Yes, and what of people who ski face-first into trees? Look, I'm not saying

drugs can't be harmful. But tragedies can occur in almost any exciting

activity. If you want to have fun, you take certain risks. Some of them

aren't

worth it. Dabbling in cocaine probably isn't worth the risk, especially if

you

don't know yourself to be stable and responsible. Trying to be Evil

Canneival

(sp?) probably isn't worth it to most people either. But modifying either

field-- pulling trix on a BMX, snowboarding, smoking pot, etc can result in

a

happy medium between fun and risk.

Not to mention seeing so many truly awe-inspiring bands implode from the

drug

> use of the band members - I used to LOVE having to babysit the band's

> drummer for a day before each gig, in the hope she wouldn't be sitting in the

> corner of her room with a needle hanging out of her arm when she was supposed

to

> be playing the drums. And one of my favorite humorous memories is a nineteen

> year old guy I knew who started having paranoid delusions from too much coke,

> who killed himself. At nineteen, isn't that hysterically funny? And how

> about those babies born to drug addicted mothers - such a hoot, ya know? A

real

> laugh riot, the way they scream and scream and just don't stop.

> Yeah, just like a video game.

Christie, all of these things are horrible. But people can drive

irresponsible, drink alcohol irresponsibly, pull stunts irresponsibly, play

sports

irresponsibly, and hurt themselves in so many ways. That doesn't make any

of those

activities inherently harmful.

And the average person's use of pot is so far off on the other side of the

spectrum from these tragedies that this is essentially a caricature of drug

use.

My cousin nearly killed himself drinking alcohol and had his stomach pumped

in time. That doesn't negate the fact that most people use alcohol, most

people do it responsibly, and most people benefit much more from alcohol

than they

are harmed by it.

Just the same with drugs, many people abuse drugs, and some drugs are

particularly nasty and tend to lend themselves to abuse. This results in

many

tragedies, like the ones you told of, and I don't want to see this happen,

and I

empathize with anyone who has to live with it. But these cases hardly

represent

the majority of drug use. Some 70% of Americans have used illegal drugs,

and

I think this number is growing with my generation, and most of these people

aren't dead, nor living in a hellacious tragedy.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Agreed.

But the drug has to share the guilt.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Gene Schwartz [mailto:implode7@...]

Well, if someone irresponsibly drives while so stoned that his condition

causes an accident, then it is not the drug that causes the accident, it is

the person. People are responsible for their actions. People have been

taking intoxicants for thousands of years. They didn't suddenly become bad

because they invented cars.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/04 10:34:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Again, how can people who are so into " healthy food " use drugs to rot their

> brains?

>

Well I personally haven't smoked pot in over 6 years, actually going on 7.

That said, I'll probably start again, for occasional use. I quit because it

was giving me panic attacks, but I haven't had a panic attack in over 2 years,

and my anxiety disorders have basically disappeared since eating NT, and I

think supplementing with zinc and B6 is helping even more.

Now, assuming that I do resume occasional use of marijuana, to answer the

question: because I find the idea that occasional use of marijuana will " rot my

brain " simply preposterous. I've smoked pot hundreds of times, and I have a

general idea of what kind of effect it has on mental states in the short-term

and long-term. I also have lots of friends who smoke pot, and again, one of the

regularly pot-smoking friends I have has two masters degrees and a year left

to his PhD, so his brain doesn't seem to be rotting.

And I'll mention again, people who continue to get drunk on weekends after

college advance farther in their careers, according to Forbes. Now that isn't a

reason to drink if you don't like it, but it does show that recreational drug

use doesn't rot your brain or impair your success.

Drugs aren't for everyone. Some people like them; some people don't. And

some people who like them don't know how to use them responsibly, and shouldn't.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Well, if someone irresponsibly drives while so stoned that his condition

causes an accident, then it is not the drug that causes the accident, it is

the person. People are responsible for their actions. People have been

taking intoxicants for thousands of years. They didn't suddenly become bad

because they invented cars.

From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...>

Reply-

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:41:22 -0500

< >

Subject: RE: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

How about the person driving under the influence of one of your " harmless "

drugs who runs a stop sign, or does something else stupid and wipes a

family, or even a portion of one?

Would you still say that those drugs never killed anyone?

You have your ideas and I have mine so I'm not going to debate this but I

would like to know your answers.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

I'm sorry to hear that, but at the same time, there are many things people

die from, and Wanita and I were discussing specifically pot and LSD, neither

of

which, to my knowledge, have every killed anyone.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>So far the only two people I've ever met who haven't

>smoked pot are my grandparents, and if you count internet friends, the two

>who

>piped up today.

Add me. I've never tried any illegal drug of any kind, actually, and of

the legal ones, I've never smoked or used tobacco in other forms, but I

have used caffeine and I still do drink some.

>While I admittedly wasn't there, I don't think drugs were used as an outside

>tool. Some revolutionaries believed LSD to be integral to socialism.

The fact that some revolutionaries believed LSD was integral to socialism

(or even that any activist believed any drug was essential) doesn't mean

drugs and belief in them wasn't introduced and/or fostered by external

agencies.

>Drugs are

>fun, and that's pretty much all there is to it. Kind of like video games.

While I suppose some people do take video game playing to unhealthy

extremes, come on! I'm hardly in the extreme law-and-order camp when it

comes to drugs, but that doesn't mean we should pretend they're all wholly

benign either.

-

[Guest guest]

How do substances possess guilt?

From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...>

Reply-

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:27:36 -0500

< >

Subject: RE: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

Agreed.

But the drug has to share the guilt.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Gene Schwartz [mailto:implode7@...]

Well, if someone irresponsibly drives while so stoned that his condition

causes an accident, then it is not the drug that causes the accident, it is

the person. People are responsible for their actions. People have been

taking intoxicants for thousands of years. They didn't suddenly become bad

because they invented cars.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I'm very worried this is going to be taken the wrong way, but I don't mean it

>to be offensive: given that you've admittedly never *done* drugs, I don't see

>how you're in a position to judge.

That's ridiculous. Does someone need to have eaten PHOs to conclude

they're bad? And sugar? Are you dismissing science entirely and saying

that subjective experience should be our only guide?

>However, just because some drugs in some abuse circumstances are harmful,

>doesn't mean drugs are inherently harmful-- only their reckless use. All

>sorts

>of things that are fun, such as, say, snowboarding, can be very dangerous as

>well, if not done with care.

The difference is that some drugs are highly addictive, meaning that over

time, it's difficult or even impossible for most or perhaps even all people

to continue using them " responsibly " .

>Wanita and I were discussing specifically pot and LSD, neither of

>which, to my knowledge, have every killed anyone.

My understanding is that pot smoking is worse for the lungs than tobacco,

and though this says nothing about overall numbers, I do know there have

been people who died due to LSD trips -- walking off buildings, into

traffic, etc.

-