RE: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

[Guest guest]

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

I understand and apology accepted.

>> 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? <<

Well, not really, because I think that drugs are harmful in and of themselves as

ingested substances. Pot may not be harmful if eaten rather than smoked (I say

" may " because I really have no idea), but smoking itself is not good for your

respiratory system, skin, or eyes, regardless of what you are smoking.

Pharmaceuticals (legal or illegal) are hideously bad for you, much worse than

the many things we talk about on this list as harmful such as transfats,

preservatives, etc. I mean, look at how folks agonize over carbonized fragments

in their iron skillets, then tell me smoking pot is harmless. <G>

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

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

If so, then how I understand what you are saying is that you are comparing drug

use to things that are " fun but dangerous " like sky diving. Although there is

certainly some validity there, I don't fully agree with this analogy, because

other than a certain sense of exhilaration, sky diving doesn't actually impair

judgement or alter your mental state or reduce your reflex times or any of the

other myriad of adverse physical effects that pharmaceuticals, as well as pot

and alcohol, have.

Although I have strong opinions, I'm a live and let live kind of person. Leave

me alone and I'll leave you alone. I don't object if people want to eat

grain-fed beef or gluten or BHA and BHT or transfats or have cheetos for

breakfast, lunch, and dinner 365 days a year. I also don't object if they want

to shoot heroin or smoke hash or whatever. It's up to them. So concepts like

" bad " or " blame " don't really come into play here. If a guy gets drunk and gets

behind the wheel of a car and kills someone, it was him and him alone who did

that. There is no " blame " that can be attached to the car or to booze. But there

is also no question that many people do things when their cognitive ability and

judgement have been impaired, and their emotional state altered, by drugs or

alcohol, that they would not have done sober. I think that in order to avoid the

very situation we're discussing - a drunk driving death - that fact needs to be

acknowledged by everyone who chooses to take the risk of ingesting substances

with that effect.

I know there are health benefits shown from drinking alcohol, but they don't

outweigh benefits from other foods that don't impair judgement. So it's not a

trade off that interests me personally. I'll seek the benefits from something

that doesn't carry as much risk. For other kinds of drugs, no, I can't say they

are " only harmful when abused. " Each substance, whether a drug or a preservative

or a natural substance like gluten, has varying harmful impacts that will very

from individual to individual, and according to amount ingested. But they ARE

harmful, even when some of the harm is counterbalanced by some benefit (as with

preservatives and booze).

I also think that some of your " over-achieving pot heads " are just young. I was

able to accomplish a lot in my teens and early 20s on crappy food, little sleep,

and while using drugs on a daily basis. But there comes a point your body can't

pull that one off anymore.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> 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 haven't. Haven't tried any form of tobacco, either, and have never had

more than a few sips of alcohol or coffee. The weird thing is, my

grandmother has. I'm from the Southwest, if it matters.

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

I plead guilty to that one. Fortunately, I was wearing heavy shoes.

> 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.

Don't tempt me like that.

> > 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).

Statistics aside, I have no reason to believe that any of the people I know

outside of my extended family use any kind of illegal drug. I don't think

I've ever had any offered to me, either.

> > Heard interesting data this week.

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

> > black.

Where did you hear it? I recommend that you take anything you hear from that

source in the future with a grain of salt, because it's not true. For state

prisons, the number is 57%. I can't find official statistics for Federal

prisons, but I believe that the number is lower there, and a web site which

gave the same 57% figure for state prisons as the official statistics also

gave 42% for Federal prison. Even if all the federal drug prisoners were

black, it would only push the number up to 67%.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p02.pdf

(Tables 15 and 18)

Also, these numbers don't tell the whole story. There are varying degrees of

drug offenses which carry different sentences, and this is not reflected

here. Smoking marijuana is not the same as trafficking in crack (which is

not to say that I think that either should be illegal). Also, because of

plea-bargaining, there is often a disconnect between the crime that is

actually committed and the one for which the conviction is obtained. I do

believe that the system is probably skewed against those who rely on

government-issue lawyers because they can't afford private-sector ones, but

even the correct statistics probably far overstate the racial aspect.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Quoting Idol <Idol@...>:

> 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?

Agreed. Which is kind of creepy.

> 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 " .

Some are, but some aren't.

> >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...

Possibly, but dosage matters. As I understand it, most pot smokers are

recreational users who don't consume the vast quantities that pack-a-day

cigarette smokers do.

> 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.

That's something that, I assume, can be controlled by responsible use.

Chris's point, and don't know whether it's true, is that few if any people

have ever died from LSD toxicity.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>>> 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? <<

>

>Well, not really, because I think that drugs are harmful in and of themselves

as ingested substances. Pot may not be harmful if eaten rather than smoked (I

say " may " because I really have no idea), but smoking itself is not good for

your respiratory system, skin, or eyes, regardless of what you are smoking.

Pharmaceuticals (legal or illegal) are hideously bad for you, much worse than

the many things we talk about on this list as harmful such as transfats,

preservatives, etc. I mean, look at how folks agonize over carbonized fragments

in their iron skillets, then tell me smoking pot is harmless. <G>

I agree with Christie here ... " drugs per se " ARE mostly harmful, even the

prescription kind. Some are incredibly bad for you, and cause permanent brain

damage, psychosis, etc. There have been good studies done on pot and mental

states ... and there are a lot more easily observable bad effects than from BBQ,

trans fats, etc. And I've seen enough people " go under " from drugs that I'd

certainly not condone their use. Nor marry a user of them.

Of the drugs, pot is probably the most benign, and may even be useful in some

cases. But it's a far stretch to categorize it as " not harmful " . If nothing

else, it seems to encourage people to eat too much.

Alcohol IS harmful to a lot of people, and that may even be a genetic thing. In

smaller amounts it seems to be beneficial, but there is no study I'm aware of

that claims that for pot (unless you are on chemo). I don't much like that so

much of our money is going to jail drug-dealers, myself, but that is a lot

different than saying the drugs are just harmless fun. Again, how can people who

are so into " healthy food " use drugs to rot their brains?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

LOL! occasional pot use does not " rot " your brain. Hysterical exaggeration

doesn't accomplish anything. I regret smoking as much as I did for so long.l

I don't regret smoking recreationally, which I still do. The notion that

smoking once every couple of months does me any kind of harm is just

ludicrous to me.

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

Reply-

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:20:23 -0800

Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>>> 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? <<

>

>Well, not really, because I think that drugs are harmful in and of themselves

as ingested substances. Pot may not be harmful if eaten rather than smoked

(I say " may " because I really have no idea), but smoking itself is not good

for your respiratory system, skin, or eyes, regardless of what you are

smoking. Pharmaceuticals (legal or illegal) are hideously bad for you, much

worse than the many things we talk about on this list as harmful such as

transfats, preservatives, etc. I mean, look at how folks agonize over

carbonized fragments in their iron skillets, then tell me smoking pot is

harmless. <G>

I agree with Christie here ... " drugs per se " ARE mostly harmful, even the

prescription kind. Some are incredibly bad for you, and cause permanent

brain damage, psychosis, etc. There have been good studies done on pot and

mental states ... and there are a lot more easily observable bad effects

than from BBQ, trans fats, etc. And I've seen enough people " go under " from

drugs that I'd certainly not condone their use. Nor marry a user of them.

Of the drugs, pot is probably the most benign, and may even be useful in

some cases. But it's a far stretch to categorize it as " not harmful " . If

nothing else, it seems to encourage people to eat too much.

Alcohol IS harmful to a lot of people, and that may even be a genetic thing.

In smaller amounts it seems to be beneficial, but there is no study I'm

aware of that claims that for pot (unless you are on chemo). I don't much

like that so much of our money is going to jail drug-dealers, myself, but

that is a lot different than saying the drugs are just harmless fun. Again,

how can people who are so into " healthy food " use drugs to rot their brains?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

What is more harmfull.

1) marijuana

2) Mcdonalds/KFC

?????

_____

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

Sent: Saturday, 7 February 2004 6:32 PM

Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

LOL! occasional pot use does not " rot " your brain. Hysterical exaggeration

doesn't accomplish anything. I regret smoking as much as I did for so long.l

I don't regret smoking recreationally, which I still do. The notion that

smoking once every couple of months does me any kind of harm is just

ludicrous to me.

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

Reply-

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:20:23 -0800

Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>>> 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? <<

>

>Well, not really, because I think that drugs are harmful in and of

themselves

as ingested substances. Pot may not be harmful if eaten rather than smoked

(I say " may " because I really have no idea), but smoking itself is not good

for your respiratory system, skin, or eyes, regardless of what you are

smoking. Pharmaceuticals (legal or illegal) are hideously bad for you, much

worse than the many things we talk about on this list as harmful such as

transfats, preservatives, etc. I mean, look at how folks agonize over

carbonized fragments in their iron skillets, then tell me smoking pot is

harmless. <G>

I agree with Christie here ... " drugs per se " ARE mostly harmful, even the

prescription kind. Some are incredibly bad for you, and cause permanent

brain damage, psychosis, etc. There have been good studies done on pot and

mental states ... and there are a lot more easily observable bad effects

than from BBQ, trans fats, etc. And I've seen enough people " go under " from

drugs that I'd certainly not condone their use. Nor marry a user of them.

Of the drugs, pot is probably the most benign, and may even be useful in

some cases. But it's a far stretch to categorize it as " not harmful " . If

nothing else, it seems to encourage people to eat too much.

Alcohol IS harmful to a lot of people, and that may even be a genetic thing.

In smaller amounts it seems to be beneficial, but there is no study I'm

aware of that claims that for pot (unless you are on chemo). I don't much

like that so much of our money is going to jail drug-dealers, myself, but

that is a lot different than saying the drugs are just harmless fun. Again,

how can people who are so into " healthy food " use drugs to rot their brains?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 9:28:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> There has to be something wrong with someone who wants to use a drug of any

> kind to " enhance life. " A person who is whole and healthy should be getting

> their kicks in other ways. Such as responding to silly email messages on

> this list.

Judith,

The idea that someone who " needs something " to have fun has some sort of

deficiency is ridiculous. It's insulting to those who find their fun in such

ways,

too, but I'll just point out why it's illogical:

Everyone needs something to have fun. Unless you are a Hindu who can achieve

ecstacy by assimilating into nothingness, you are in the 99.999% of the

population who finds their fun with some " tool. " Video games are an example;

sports

are an example; a computer is an example; reading is an example; watching

movies is an example.

Think of any single activity that people consider fun, and I'll point out the

" crutch " that they are using to you. Your judgment that someone who uses a

particular form of fun that you don't enjoy has " something wrong with them, " is

just your subjective judgment based on what *you* consider fun, and is no

different than my opinion that people who watch baseball rather than football

have

" something wrong with them. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 10:43:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> I was giving another view to your generalities, not discussing as ok by me.

> Don't agree at all with your second sentence below.

>

> >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.

I'm sorry Wanita, I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with me. What I

meant is that we were specifically talking about pot and LSD at the time. I

didn't mean to imply we agreed on anything! :-)

It's pretty universally recognized that neither of those drugs have any

addictive qualities. However, I believe that people with a certain gene can

become

addictied to pot. One of my friends had a pretty clear physical addiction to

pot. But that's a very tiny percentage of people who actually use it. It's far

less addictive than, say, nicotine or caffeine.

Chris

[Guest guest]

There has to be something wrong with someone who wants to use a drug of any

kind to " enhance life. " A person who is whole and healthy should be getting

their kicks in other ways. Such as responding to silly email messages on

this list.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

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

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

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]

I was giving another view to your generalities, not discussing as ok by me.

Don't agree at all with your second sentence below.

> 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

[Guest guest]

Chris-

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

>physiological.

I realize now that you thought so, but by all appearances all aspects of

drugs and their use were on the table.

>but someone needs direct experience when judging the psychological and

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

Someone might need direct experience to authoritatively report on the

experience of drug use, but not on other effects. It's possible to observe

drug users using drugs and come to a wide variety of perfectly justified

conclusions, for example.

>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.

I've known of people who got brutally hooked on coke after their first

line, and others who used it occasionally and successfully quit on a

whim. I think its addictive power varies widely with physiology as well as

use (and probably with type and grade of coke too).

My main point, anyway, is that " responsible " first use offers no guarantee

that profound addiction won't come. With some drugs, you don't know until

you try. My understanding is that pot isn't one, but coke is.

>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.

Heroin is a disaster for the vast majority of people who try it. Same with

crack.

>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.

Those were two examples mentioned, but you'd made a blanket statement.

But what portion of the population can be characterized as " certain

individuals " ? If, say, there's a 25% chance you're going to be badly

addicted, it seems like a really bad gamble to me. (That said, I expect

you're right that pot and LSD are addictive only in rare cases -- but I'm

talking generally.)

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>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.

A video game does not, to my knowledge, alter the restraint, logic,

reflexes, and other mental functions of a player. A drug can. Certain

drugs inevitably do. It's a social convention that alcohol impairs

judgement but not enough to prevent a person from being able to choose not

to drive, but what about other drugs which have much more profound effects?

-

[Guest guest]

>LOL! occasional pot use does not " rot " your brain. Hysterical exaggeration

>doesn't accomplish anything. I regret smoking as much as I did for so long.l

>I don't regret smoking recreationally, which I still do. The notion that

>smoking once every couple of months does me any kind of harm is just

>ludicrous to me.

I would tend to agree on the " occasional " . I know folks in both camps ...

some smoke once in awhile, others go out every lunchtime for

a " pot break " . While it is hard to point to cause and effect here,

seems like most folks can get away with a lot in their younger

years, but when they get to my age, you really see the difference.

Their brains ARE different in pretty predictable ways.

And our local very healthy organic farmer who also happens to

smoke cigarettes just recently went in for a triple bypass. Granted he may

not have if he was on the " correct " diet, but still ... my non-smoking

inlaws are much older and their hearts are fine. Statistically,

at some point, a person pays the price.

(It is also statistically true that young men are prone to risk-taking

behavior! Which I say works to get the more idiotic ones out of

the gene pool ...)

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>I'd bet that eating a Big Mac once a week is more harmful than smoking a

>joint every day.

With or without the bun? And how much stomach acid does the eater

produce? And is the pot organic, or loaded with pesticides? <g>

-

[Guest guest]

I'd bet that eating a Big Mac once a week is more harmful than smoking a

joint every day.

From: " Byron " <anthony.byron@...>

Reply-

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:50:21 +1000

< >

Subject: RE: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

What is more harmfull.

1) marijuana

2) Mcdonalds/KFC

?????

_____

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

Sent: Saturday, 7 February 2004 6:32 PM

Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

LOL! occasional pot use does not " rot " your brain. Hysterical exaggeration

doesn't accomplish anything. I regret smoking as much as I did for so long.l

I don't regret smoking recreationally, which I still do. The notion that

smoking once every couple of months does me any kind of harm is just

ludicrous to me.

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

Reply-

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:20:23 -0800

Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>>> 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? <<

>

>Well, not really, because I think that drugs are harmful in and of

themselves

as ingested substances. Pot may not be harmful if eaten rather than smoked

(I say " may " because I really have no idea), but smoking itself is not good

for your respiratory system, skin, or eyes, regardless of what you are

smoking. Pharmaceuticals (legal or illegal) are hideously bad for you, much

worse than the many things we talk about on this list as harmful such as

transfats, preservatives, etc. I mean, look at how folks agonize over

carbonized fragments in their iron skillets, then tell me smoking pot is

harmless. <G>

I agree with Christie here ... " drugs per se " ARE mostly harmful, even the

prescription kind. Some are incredibly bad for you, and cause permanent

brain damage, psychosis, etc. There have been good studies done on pot and

mental states ... and there are a lot more easily observable bad effects

than from BBQ, trans fats, etc. And I've seen enough people " go under " from

drugs that I'd certainly not condone their use. Nor marry a user of them.

Of the drugs, pot is probably the most benign, and may even be useful in

some cases. But it's a far stretch to categorize it as " not harmful " . If

nothing else, it seems to encourage people to eat too much.

Alcohol IS harmful to a lot of people, and that may even be a genetic thing.

In smaller amounts it seems to be beneficial, but there is no study I'm

aware of that claims that for pot (unless you are on chemo). I don't much

like that so much of our money is going to jail drug-dealers, myself, but

that is a lot different than saying the drugs are just harmless fun. Again,

how can people who are so into " healthy food " use drugs to rot their brains?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

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

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 09:25:03 -0500

> < >

> Subject: RE: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

> There has to be something wrong with someone who wants to use a drug of any

> kind to " enhance life. " A person who is whole and healthy should be getting

> their kicks in other ways. Such as responding to silly email messages on

> this list.

>

> Enjoy! ;-)

>

> Judith Alta

>

>

I think that you are using somewhat circular reasoning. When a 'healthy'

user of drugs wants to get high, the reasoning isn't really 'I want to

enhance my life now because I'm not getting enough kicks from healthier

things'. Obviously, if that is the reasoning, then by definition one is

filling a void in one's life. Now, I would also argue that if one does have

such a void, that it is not necessarily wrong to fill it with drugs, as long

as the drugs themselves do not inhibit the pursuit of a solution to one's

problems. And I don't think that they necessarily do, though they do

sometimes, depending on the person and the problem.

But maybe you weren't being serious at all? It's hard to estimate the range

of the smiley. Perhaps there should be parameters associated with a smiley,

for instance, a number that told the reader how many sentences back are

affected. So, for instance, if your entire paragraph was affected, you'd

write :-) 3, or even :-) P. I think that the moderators should enforce this

rule.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:27:58 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

>

> I've known of people who got brutally hooked on coke after their first

> line, and others who used it occasionally and successfully quit on a

> whim. I think its addictive power varies widely with physiology as well as

> use (and probably with type and grade of coke too).

>

> My main point, anyway, is that " responsible " first use offers no guarantee

> that profound addiction won't come. With some drugs, you don't know until

> you try. My understanding is that pot isn't one, but coke is.

>

I had some experience with coke (there was a period of time when people were

actually saying that it was harmless), and would have to agree that it is

extremely dangerous stuff. When I was doing it, the urge to do more was

incredible, and if I had had the funds back then I probably would have spent

all of them to obtain more.

I do wonder though about whether someone could indeed become " brutally

hooked " after the first line. I can see someone liking the experience so

much (and good coke is amazingly, intensely seductive) that they wanted more

at any cost. But is that really the same thing as addiction? I've thought of

addiction as being a state where you need the drug because of changes

brought on by the drug, either physiologically, or pyschologically, and I

just don't see that happening after one line, no matter how powerful the

coke.

[Guest guest]

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:30:12 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

> Chris-

>

>> 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.

>

> A video game does not, to my knowledge, alter the restraint, logic,

> reflexes, and other mental functions of a player. A drug can. Certain

> drugs inevitably do. It's a social convention that alcohol impairs

> judgement but not enough to prevent a person from being able to choose not

> to drive, but what about other drugs which have much more profound effects?

The fact that a drug can alter the abilities of a person to drive is not the

" fault " of the drug. Something can only be 'at fault' if it itself has some

responsibility. An analogy might be a situation where a person is walking a

dog who is not under adequate restraint, and the dog attacks someone. Is the

dog 'at fault'? That's rather an odd usage. We might wind up killing the

dog, but more as a defensive measure against the dog harming someone else.

We would however probably consider the dog's owner to be responsible. The

owner should consider the potential behavior of the dog and restrain it

accordingly

I also don't quite understand your usage of 'social convention' above. How

can a convention affect the truth of the matter as to how much one's

judgement is impaired after getting drunk? In any case, in my experience, I

don't think that any drug (well, I really can't say that I've taken all of

them - only the 'usual suspects') affects judgement as to one's coordination

as much as alcohol can. And even so, I would say that it is not alcohol

which is 'bad' or 'good' per se, it is still the person's own responsibility

if he/she drives while drunk.

[Guest guest]

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:56:31 -0800

>

> Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

>

>> LOL! occasional pot use does not " rot " your brain. Hysterical exaggeration

>> doesn't accomplish anything. I regret smoking as much as I did for so long.l

>> I don't regret smoking recreationally, which I still do. The notion that

>> smoking once every couple of months does me any kind of harm is just

>> ludicrous to me.

>

> I would tend to agree on the " occasional " . I know folks in both camps ...

> some smoke once in awhile, others go out every lunchtime for

> a " pot break " . While it is hard to point to cause and effect here,

> seems like most folks can get away with a lot in their younger

> years, but when they get to my age, you really see the difference.

> Their brains ARE different in pretty predictable ways.

>

I'd never argue that smoking a lot is good for you. But I also think that

using phrases such as 'rotting your brain' exaggerates the damage greatly. I

think that any changes to one's thinking process that is caused by

execessive use is reversed by a few days of abstension.

[Guest guest]

hah - even without the bun! And I'm comparing only to the really good stuff

From: Idol <Idol@...>

Reply-

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:03:47 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

Gene-

>I'd bet that eating a Big Mac once a week is more harmful than smoking a

>joint every day.

With or without the bun? And how much stomach acid does the eater

produce? And is the pot organic, or loaded with pesticides? <g>

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>The fact that a drug can alter the abilities of a person to drive is not the

> " fault " of the drug. Something can only be 'at fault' if it itself has some

>responsibility.

OK, fine, I should have specifically addressed the philosophical aspects of

the assignation of " guilt " and " responsibility " as opposed to " cause " and

" effect " .

If a hypothetical drug " causes " someone to lose, say, 50% of his judgement,

and people need 75% in order to successfully avoid doing dangerous things

like driving under the influence, how does one use that drug

" responsibly " ? By going into a timelock room from which there's no

possibility of egress until the trip is over?

>I also don't quite understand your usage of 'social convention' above. How

>can a convention affect the truth of the matter as to how much one's

>judgement is impaired after getting drunk?

I wasn't commenting on the reality of the matter, just saying that it's a

social convention that drunk people all have sufficient judgement to be

held fully responsible for the decisions they make under the influence.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> Gene-

>

>> The fact that a drug can alter the abilities of a person to drive is not the

>> " fault " of the drug. Something can only be 'at fault' if it itself has some

>> responsibility.

>

> OK, fine, I should have specifically addressed the philosophical aspects of

> the assignation of " guilt " and " responsibility " as opposed to " cause " and

> " effect " .

>

These subtleties are important, actually, when one is trying to argue that

something is good or bad.

> If a hypothetical drug " causes " someone to lose, say, 50% of his judgement,

> and people need 75% in order to successfully avoid doing dangerous things

> like driving under the influence, how does one use that drug

> " responsibly " ? 

Many people can use mind altering substances without engaging in dangerous

activity, so it does appear possible. If there were a hypothetical substance

which would override a person's knowledge about what is dangerous behavior -

then, to that degree, if the person did not somehow make arrangements to

constrain his/her behavior, then that would constitute irresponsible use of

the drug. i'm sure that some drugs act this way with some people - probably

alcohol does more than any other, at least in my experience. Most people

under the influence of other mind altering substances which do not affect

coordination as much are aware that they shouldn't drive. Somehow, alcohol

seems to fill some people with more bravado about their abilities. But many

people can drink responsibly also - i.e. are aware when they've had too

much.

So what constitutes responsible drug use, in this sense, varies from drug to

drug and person to person. Some people probably shouldn't drive after

drinking coffee...

> By going into a timelock room from which there's no

> possibility of egress until the trip is over?

It worked for larry Talbot...wait, no it didn't...

>

>> I also don't quite understand your usage of 'social convention' above. How

>> can a convention affect the truth of the matter as to how much one's

>> judgement is impaired after getting drunk?

>

> I wasn't commenting on the reality of the matter, just saying that it's a

> social convention that drunk people all have sufficient judgement to be

> held fully responsible for the decisions they make under the influence.

>

hmmm - more so than other drugs? It's my impression that people are held

accountable for their behavior done under the influence of any drug taken

voluntarily, mitigated to some degree but not too much by the degree to

which the drug 'made them crazy'.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 12:38:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

wrote:

> >A video game does not, to my knowledge, alter the restraint, logic,

> >reflexes, and other mental functions of a player. A drug can. Certain

> >drugs inevitably do. It's a social convention that alcohol impairs

> >judgement but not enough to prevent a person from being able to choose not

> >to drive, but what about other drugs which have much more profound effects?

I agree with everything Gene said and think he answered this sufficiently.

But, I just want to make an additional, somewhat obvious, point:

Playing a video game quite obviously *does* alter the reflexes of a driver,

and other mental functions. Someone playing a video game firstly isn't even

looking at the road, and secondly is occupied, which would seriously reduce

reactiont time (assuming they even managed to see what they were reacting too.)

By the same time, someone smoking pot on their porch will not get into a car

accident. Why? Because they aren't in a car!

Thus, clearly there is nothing about either video games or pot that causes

car accidents, but if one irresponsibly uses either by combining them with the

task of driving, that irresponsibility could lead to a car accident.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 11:30:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Someone might need direct experience to authoritatively report on the

> experience of drug use, but not on other effects. It's possible to observe

> drug users using drugs and come to a wide variety of perfectly justified

> conclusions, for example.

I agree. But many people speak without such experience. Christie wasn't at

all, and has since made that very clear.

>

> >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.

>

> I've known of people who got brutally hooked on coke after their first

> line, and others who used it occasionally and successfully quit on a

> whim. I think its addictive power varies widely with physiology as well as

> use (and probably with type and grade of coke too).

I doubt it's physiologically possible to get addicted after the first line.

I think Gene was correct in making the distinction he made.

>

> My main point, anyway, is that " responsible " first use offers no guarantee

> that profound addiction won't come. With some drugs, you don't know until

> you try. My understanding is that pot isn't one, but coke is.

Well I don't want to push the issue farther, because I agree coke is pretty

dangerous.

>

> >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.

>

> Heroin is a disaster for the vast majority of people who try it. Same with

> crack.

No disagreement from me...

> >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.

>

> Those were two examples mentioned, but you'd made a blanket statement.

That's true, and I shouldn't have, but I didn't forsee how it would be

interpreted. Since Wanita was making the statement about mainstream drug

culture

and how " escapism " is more common, etc, I meant the statement to be about

mainstream drug culture. And the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people who

use

illegal drugs are not heroin or crack addicts, nor users, I'm sure.

> But what portion of the population can be characterized as " certain

> individuals " ? If, say, there's a 25% chance you're going to be badly

> addicted, it seems like a really bad gamble to me. (That said, I expect

> you're right that pot and LSD are addictive only in rare cases -- but I'm

> talking generally.)

I was referring to the addictiveness of pot there. I think I might have

accidentally including LSD by implication, but I'm not aware of any

physiologically addictive features of LSD at all. Pot is like alcohol-- some

people have a

gene for addiction. The chance is absolutely tiny, and it's much rare than

the alcoholic gene. The chance is more like 1%, if even, as far as I know.

25% is a bad gamble. But most people who use illegal drugs, to my knowledge,

are using things like pot, ecstasy, and LSD. As far as I know, ecstasy is

only harmful if you aren't keeping hydrated, and LSD is only harmful if you have

mental problems, though it can have nasty, semi-permanent, cumulative effects

over multiple usages.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 11:35:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> You're ignoring some fundamental differences: first, the video game doesn't

>

> exert anything remotely like the same kind of pull on a driver that an

> addictive drug can; second, the video game doesn't impair the driver's

> ability to drive for a period of time after he's finished playing the game;

> and third, playing the video game doesn't make the driver more likely to

> drive when he shouldn't whereas drugs can. We're not just talking about

> using while driving, but about all the influences using can have on

> driving, so your comparison is unfair and inaccurate.

I really don't see why. If you smoke pot, then go drive while you're still

stoned, that would be analogous to " still playing the game " while you're

driving. Also, smoking pot doesn't typically impair your judgment like alcohol

does

(nor does it impair your ability to drive a car to the same degree, but

that's another story...)

> >By the same time, someone smoking pot on their porch will not get into a

> car

> >accident. Why? Because they aren't in a car!

>

> Forget about pot. I don't want to debate specific drugs.

Well, ok, but I think Judith was the one who " set the goalposts " on this one.

So you're debating a statement I made specifically about pot, in response to

a scenario she proposed, specifically about driving under the influence of

pot.

> >Thus, clearly there is nothing about either video games or pot that causes

> >car accidents, but if one irresponsibly uses either by combining them with

> >the

> >task of driving, that irresponsibility could lead to a car accident.

>

> Let's hypothesize a drug which seriously erodes judgement and reflexes,

> such that driving after using would be dangerous. Let's say decides

> he's going to use some, so he decides he won't get in his car until

> tomorrow. He uses some, and then he realizes he needs something at the

> store. His judgement now impaired, he gets in the car and heads for the

> store. Do you really not see the contributory role the drug is playing in

> potentially causing an accident?

In this hypothetical scenario, does the drug cause to believe driving

is safe, when a sober would have decided otherwise? And is sober

unware that his judgment is seriously impaired under the influence of this

drug?

Chris