Posts concerning drug use

[Garvin]

lol K...And yet I have to respond to this. You have an art for taking things out of context. I don't feel the need to prove my credentials or my education to someone who keeps resorting to distorting the argument to feel like he's winning it. I never said that you can die from non-physical addiction. That was never the arguement. You keep asking me what can't be addictive... I'm not going to sit out and type a list for you, instead of repeatedly asking me the same inane question, how about you go do some research then you'll have facts and not conjecture.

Regardless of what you think, the fact is that lives can be altered by any addiction, maybe not including death for non-physical addictions obviously. But to make like they are not equally as serious shows nothing more than your deparation to justify your point. You telling me someone like these people who get addicted to WoW and let their whole lives go to shit are somehow less a danger to themselves or their family as a drug addiction in a different manner? You think the possibility of death from withdrawal symptoms somehow makes that addiction more dangerous to the addict and others than the guy who jeopardizes his home, his job, the welfare of his children and family due to gambling addiction? Dangerous consequences are not restricted to physical symptoms resulting from addiction. And if you really think that they are, you're mistaken.

On a side note, though I wasn't feeling like sharing because it's nobody's damned business, I have personally watched a friend go through a pot addiction and have seen what it can do to someone's life and to their loved ones. So you and all the people like you who want to sit there and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about can go ahead and think what you want and spew whatever rhetoric you keep coming back at me with. It can be addictive, and whether psychological or physical is really moot. The destructiveness it can inflict on your life in terms of your ability to care for yourself and others is a reality. Just because you don't die from something doesn't mean it can't do extensive damage to your life.

If you feel the need to grill me further or want to question my knowledge or education again, feel free to take it to PM. Unless you feel the need to keep acting like you are the only one with any knowledge on the subject or you'd like to indirectly call me a liar some more, in which case, have fun with the rest of the thread, I won't be posting here again.

Anything that is enjoyable for a person can cause a psychological addiction. Anything at all. Remove a pleasurable stimulus, and it will be sought out again. Depending on how this progresses, it can cause danger in many ways.

Chemical addiction is a completely different animal. Removal of the substance causes trauma within the body, producing tangible, potentially debilitating symptoms.

Both are dangerous, but the difference is that psychological addictions are a problem with the person whereas chemical addictions are a problem with the substance. This is why a distinction is made, and it's a rather important one.

That being said, so what? From a public good standpoint, drugs which cause a definite severe chemical addiction are iffy at best, due to all the complications, but we aren't talking about anything of the sort. If someone forms a psychological addiction to something, the blame rests solely with that person, and that person alone. Chances are in such a situation, if not drugs, then alcohol, sex, what have you. Why should another's inability to control their actions cause myself or anyone else to be punished?

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking a low blow here, just because your friend could not control his actions, or made poor choices, does not mean anyone else should suffer as a result, even if that suffering is as minor as having their posts deleted just because it makes you unhappy.

In summary: Everyone is responsible for their actions. If they want to talk about drugs, fine. If someone wants to ignore it, or think they're an idiot, that's fine too. If the posts get moved to Reality Sinks In, that's great, it belongs there anyway. If someone is old enough to make their own decisions, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to read it. If someone's not old enough to make their own decisions, they shouldn't be on the internet at all, more than likely.

 

[Firestreak]

lol K...And yet I have to respond to this. You have an art for taking things out of context. I don't feel the need to prove my credentials or my education to someone who keeps resorting to distorting the argument to feel like he's winning it. I never said that you can die from non-physical addiction. That was never the arguement. You keep asking me what can't be addictive... I'm not going to sit out and type a list for you, instead of repeatedly asking me the same inane question, how about you go do some research then you'll have facts and not conjecture.

Regardless of what you think, the fact is that lives can be altered by any addiction, maybe not including death for non-physical addictions obviously. But to make like they are not equally as serious shows nothing more than your deparation to justify your point. You telling me someone like these people who get addicted to WoW and let their whole lives go to shit are somehow less a danger to themselves or their family as a drug addiction in a different manner? You think the possibility of death from withdrawal symptoms somehow makes that addiction more dangerous to the addict and others than the guy who jeopardizes his home, his job, the welfare of his children and family due to gambling addiction? Dangerous consequences are not restricted to physical symptoms resulting from addiction. And if you really think that they are, you're mistaken.

On a side note, though I wasn't feeling like sharing because it's nobody's damned business, I have personally watched a friend go through a pot addiction and have seen what it can do to someone's life and to their loved ones. So you and all the people like you who want to sit there and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about can go ahead and think what you want and spew whatever rhetoric you keep coming back at me with. It can be addictive, and whether psychological or physical is really moot. The destructiveness it can inflict on your life in terms of your ability to care for yourself and others is a reality. Just because you don't die from something doesn't mean it can't do extensive damage to your life.

If you feel the need to grill me further or want to question my knowledge or education again, feel free to take it to PM. Unless you feel the need to keep acting like you are the only one with any knowledge on the subject or you'd like to indirectly call me a liar some more, in which case, have fun with the rest of the thread, I won't be posting here again.

Garvin and Trippy already said what I would have said, but let's emphasize that your main fault is thinking they are really comparable. Just because physical addiction is much worse, doesn't mean that being addicted to WoW is particularly healthy. Your attitude shows that you're either way to emotional on the subject, not wanting to admit they're difference because saying one is lesser may seem disrespectful, or you really don't know the difference, in which case you're obviously lying about having studied the area at all since this should be common knowledge.

We were having a discussion comparing the medical differences between pot and alcohol. This is not about feelings. If someone you know dies because of one substance or another, that does not chance what the substance is, although it will certainly change how you regard it. I said that alcohol was dangerous because it was an addictive substance. The fact that it's physically addictive actually means something, even though, if it wasn't physically addictive, it could still be psychologically addictive. To say they're the same, is to say the fact it's physically addictive shouldn't be a concern to people thinking about drinking, because it's apparently just as dangerous as playing WoW.

I'm sorry your friend's life was ruined by pot, but there are entire societies that are being destroyed by alcohol. There are cultures living in America who have average lifespans in their 40s thanks to heavy drinking. If I can casually chat about my favorite beers with 12 year olds like Romperstomper I should be able to mention pot.

 

[Chuash]

To the people that are for drugs and/or against them:

To each their own.

 

[Cecilee]

I agree with the OP. There are certain responsibilities that go with running open forums. Other sites disallow drug use and abuse discussions for a reason. Primarily, image. Gives videogamers a bad name. Gives the forum a bad name. Allowing it actually concentrates people who like to talk about drug use and abuse, because passers by with an affinity for it find discussion on it. Next thing you know, it's out of control and it's become a nest for users. This site is protected because it's largely isolated and it's not a completely public forum in that the general population isn't going to come in here. But that only protects the site from becoming a breeding ground. It doesn't protect people from the exposure.

You would lose two things by disallowing it. First, free speech, but free speech is limited here in other classic ways. Drug talk is as classic a non-right as warez. The ONLY reason drug discussion is being justified now is because the other thing you'd now lose is the contribution of a few posters who already have affinities for talking about drug use.

Drug use and abuse discussion should have never been sanctioned by the forum. It saves everyone a lot of trouble. Now you're stuck too far down the road with patrons who would be pretty severely affected by banning it now, and they would have been just as good patrons had they never even been given the option of taking the road they did.

 

[Excalibur]

Everyone knows what I'm gonna say right? I won't go through the whole formality of participating in this argument, but I think it goes without saying that I'm against censorship of any kind, this situation included.



And by the way, just to clear my name, when I make posts about pot or w/e it's not because I want everyone to know I do that stuff, I could care less. It's just one of the few subjects I really enjoy talking about. For some people it's math or politics, for me it's drugs, video games, and music. I like to know what other people think and what their experiences have been, that's the only reason I talk about it.

 

[Cecilee]

Advertising? Bomb kits? Scat porn? All free speech. All disallowed. To draw the line at drug use and abuse is common as salt on the internet forum today. Drug discussion cannot credibly be defended separately from the other topics that are disallowed on the forum as if it were different.

It's blatantly obvious that the forum posters are the ones being defended. Not free speech. If free speech is being defended, I want to see some breasts. The forum would get more utility from that than from someone intellectualizing ecstasy use. Poorly.

The real decision is whether you want to:
1. Tolerate drug discussions as you would tolerate random image posts.
2. Not tolerate it as you have not tolerated other free speech.

It's a simple choice. Not saying it's a simple choice to make, but it's a simple choice. There is no need to go on drama rants about free speech. It's not that lofty a decision, folks.

Mitigating factors are:
1. You have users who are making use of the activity you're considering axing, and it wasn't a crime when they were forming their identities on the board
2. This site isn't going to become a breeding ground for drug users like some of the offshoot chan sites, because you pay to post with MMO playtime here.

In this particular case I must say that first, it's a useless topic and a harmful topic that is never discussed well, only ignorantly. Second, in spite of that it would probably be excessive to leave particular posters high and dry with a rule they get screwed with. I agree with one of the mods' original assessments--no action is not optimal, but it is the best decision left to make.

The one good thing about allowing it is that you also keep the potential anti peer pressure. This topic would not have existed if drug discussion were disallowed, and thus the robokids wouldn't be able to post their idiocy, but they also wouldn't be able to hear their peers' contempt. That's a good thing for them to actively hear and ignore, as opposed to only receiving passive enforcement...which they too ignore.

 

[Garvin]

Advertising? Bomb kits? Scat porn? All free speech. All disallowed. To draw the line at drug use and abuse is common as salt on the internet forum today. Drug discussion cannot credibly be defended separately from the other topics that are disallowed on the forum as if it were different.

It's blatantly obvious that the forum posters are the ones being defended. Not free speech. If free speech is being defended, I want to see some breasts. The forum would get more utility from that than from someone intellectualizing ecstasy use. Poorly.

The real decision is whether you want to:
1. Tolerate drug discussions as you would tolerate random image posts.
2. Not tolerate it as you have not tolerated other free speech.

It's a simple choice. Not saying it's a simple choice to make, but it's a simple choice. There is no need to go on drama rants about free speech. It's not that lofty a decision, folks.

Mitigating factors are:
1. You have users who are making use of the activity you're considering axing, and it wasn't a crime when they were forming their identities on the board
2. This site isn't going to become a breeding ground for drug users like some of the offshoot chan sites, because you pay to post with MMO playtime here.

In this particular case I must say that first, it's a useless topic and a harmful topic that is never discussed well, only ignorantly. Second, in spite of that it would probably be excessive to leave particular posters high and dry with a rule they get screwed with. I agree with one of the mods' original assessments--no action is not optimal, but it is the best decision left to make.

The one good thing about allowing it is that you also keep the potential anti peer pressure. This topic would not have existed if drug discussion were disallowed, and thus the robokids wouldn't be able to post their idiocy, but they also wouldn't be able to hear their peers' contempt. That's a good thing for them to actively hear and ignore, as opposed to only receiving passive enforcement...which they too ignore.

I'd like to point out that posting advertisements is commercial speech, and isn't even considered under free speech laws.
Posting pornography of any sort in view of minors is also illegal.
Posting instructions for the construction of an explosive device, I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it is illegal as well.
This is not an accurate comparison to posting about drug use.
It's your opinion that it's bad. It's your opinion that it's universally damaging. Post your opinions if you don't like the opinions of others, but they're entitled to theirs as well.

 

[Cecilee]

This is commercial, but you're advocating walking commercials for drug use. That is illegal, and yet so is your object. You can find a difference in anything that is different. If you're going to find a difference in different things and then swear up and down that they're different and arbitrarily claim that that is the one difference that matters so that it fits your side of the story, then there is utterly no point in ever comparing two things unless they're identical. And that, like drug discussion on a forum, is useless. If it's not illegal or commercial it's free speech? Ok, whatever you want.

We can just bring out more comparisons, because no matter how many times you dismiss one, it's painfully clear that not allowing discussion of drugs is commonplace, as are the reasons for doing so. Flaming. Spamming. Disruptive posting. Racist comments. Threats. Sexual vulgarity. Some of these things the forum has chosen to allow. Some to allow in certain places. And others to not allow. Different forums allow and disallow certain types of posts deemed legal and yet inappropriate. Drug discussion is inappropriate. It perpetuates dangerous ignorance. It facilitates minors to abuse drugs--the same minors you seem to want to keep boobs away from because of the technicality that it is illegal, but who you are okay with learning what the best way to get an OTC high is, which is outright dangerous to life and limb. And before we hear from the drug reps about the safety of OTC high in 2007, come on. Not everything permissable is acceptable.

Consider it an unacceptable venue for free speech, which is what it is. Opinion? Yeah. A common one held by many if not most respectable forums. Again, this forum has some protection against some of the reasons to disallow drug discussion. Again, this forum has some posters who would be the unfair odd men out if it was enacted. Nevertheless, a lot of us really don't want to see posters disseminating either A. Ignorant drivel and advice about drugs or B. Aspects about drugs that people will read and go out and use that they wouldn't have otherwise and C. Last night's trip results.

This is my flat-out opinion that has nothing to do with arguing a side; the rest argues the side: Do coke or don't tell people about it. I don't want to hear about the kind of high that Tums pills offered you one time. It's one thing to be dangerous. It's another to be irritatingly dangerous. If you're going to hold a gun to your head don't stick it in your mouth and point up. Stick it on the bump behind your ear and point in. Dangerous? Yeah, you won't fail to hurt yourself now with that new information, whereas before you probably just blew your jaw off and will go through life with half a face. Is that acceptable? No. Disseminating dangerous information is not appropriate.

To waive off a comparison to disseminating explosive blueprints because explosive dissemination is illegal is truly to prove yourself blind to the argument and the art of comparison. Illegality is arbitrary. You cannot let it define what is and is not different.

The forum racist should sooner be accepted than a facilitating drug discusser. Some people take the latter seriously. One's a joke. The other is dangerous.

 

[Garvin]

This is commercial, but you're advocating walking commercials for drug use.

No, it's not. Commercial implies the advertisement of a product or service, provided by the person advertising or their employer.

That is illegal, and yet so is your object. You can find a difference in anything that is different. If you're going to find a difference in different things and then swear up and down that they're different and arbitrarily claim that that is the one difference that matters so that it fits your side of the story, then there is utterly no point in ever comparing two things unless they're identical. And that, like drug discussion on a forum, is useless. If it's not illegal or commercial it's free speech? Ok, whatever you want.

I figured you'd miss my entire point.
Discussion of drug use in any form is not illegal. Making a post about "I got high!" is not illegal. Drugs are illegal. Posting about it is not.

Now, on the other hand, the law forbids the exposure of minors to pornographic material. Posting something of that nature directly breaks the law.

That's the difference. Talking about breaking the law vs. actually breaking the law.

Flaming.

Is allowed, see forum section entitled "Flameboard".

Spamming.

Directly interferes with the operation of this forum.

Disruptive posting.

Again, can interfere directly with QCDN, is often split on its own, or left be if on the flameboard.

Racist comments.

Barely protected speech, even offline.

Threats.

Not even legal offline.

Sexual vulgarity.

See above regarding "posting of pornography."

Drug discussion is inappropriate.

If it's what someone is doing in real life, why is it inappropriate? Again, if you don't like it, feel free to say so.

It perpetuates dangerous ignorance.

No discussion causes far more ignorance than any amount of discussion.

It facilitates minors to abuse drugs--the same minors you seem to want to keep boobs away from but who you are okay with them learning what the best way to get an OTC high.

I am not responsible for minors visiting this site. Nor is QCDN. That's what parents are for. If you're too busy to supervise, no internet. On that note, I've never once said "I want to keep boobs away from minors." I said that was the law.

 

[Cecilee]

Nitpickery mentions how disrupting interferes with board function and ignores that practices discussed by some interferes with things like...oh...livers. Kidneys. Hearts. Consciousness. Again, it is unbelievably easy to sit back and say oh this is different so that's irrelevant. It is another thing to concede the similarities and still be standing, which you have not done nor even started.

 

[Garvin]

Nitpickery mentions how disrupting interferes with board function and ignores that practices discussed by some interferes with things like...oh...livers. Kidneys. Hearts. Consciousness. Again, it is unbelievably easy to sit back and say oh this is different so that's irrelevant. It is another thing to concede the similarities and still be standing, which you have not done nor even started.

You're comparing a single person's decision to affect their own body in the way they choose, something that nobody here is responsible for, with a person posting on a forum in a manner which interferes with the work and actions of other people. There are no similarities.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Drug discussion is inappropriate. It perpetuates dangerous ignorance. It facilitates minors to abuse drugs--the same minors you seem to want to keep boobs away from because of the technicality that it is illegal, but who you are okay with learning what the best way to get an OTC high is, which is outright dangerous to life and limb. And before we hear from the drug reps about the safety of OTC high in 2007, come on. Not everything permissable is acceptable.

It does not facilitate anyone to abuse drugs. People are gonna do what people are gonna do. DXM, the otc drug in question, is not addictive, or illegal. Sitting on your ass playing FFXI is bad for ya, does talking about it on qcdn facilitate a few hundred thousand people being fat asses? No.

Consider it an unacceptable venue for free speech, which is what it is. Opinion? Yeah. A common one held by many if not most respectable forums.

That is why I come here. This forum is better than that. Screw those other forums with their goody goody attitudes.

Again, this forum has some protection against some of the reasons to disallow drug discussion. Again, this forum has some posters who would be the unfair odd men out if it was enacted. Nevertheless, a lot of us really don't want to see posters disseminating either A. Ignorant drivel and advice about drugs or B. Aspects about drugs that people will read and go out and use that they wouldn't have otherwise and C. Last night's trip results.

A. all the discussion about drugs isn't ignorant drivel.
B. or aspects about drugs, that people were planning to use, that made them change there mind.
C. Usually makes for a fun story.

This is my flat-out opinion that has nothing to do with arguing a side; the rest argues the side: Do coke or don't tell people about it. I don't want to hear about the kind of high that Tums pills offered you one time. It's one thing to be dangerous. It's another to be irritatingly dangerous. If you're going to hold a gun to your head don't stick it in your mouth and point up. Stick it on the bump behind your ear and point in. Dangerous? Yeah, you won't fail to hurt yourself now with that new information, whereas before you probably just blew your jaw off and will go through life with half a face. Is that acceptable? No. Disseminating dangerous information is not appropriate.

If you prefer ignorance to education, more power to ya. Like you said, that is your opinion, and it doesn't bother untill you get to the part where you want my behavior dictated by your opinion.

To waive off a comparison to disseminating explosive blueprints because explosive dissemination is illegal is truly to prove yourself blind to the argument and the art of comparison. Illegality is arbitrary. You cannot let it define what is and is not different.

If disseminating explosive bluebrints was legal, you would be allowed to do that here as well. The point is we can do whatever we want within the confines of the law. As much as you want it not to be, talking about drugs is legal.

The forum racist should sooner be accepted than a facilitating drug discusser. Some people take the latter seriously. One's a joke. The other is dangerous.

You trivialize the strangest things.

 

[phishn]

All this talk about addiction. A sentence someone wrote a few pages back really struck me.

"It only means such if such a person becomes addicted to the point where they cannot carry out a normal, functioning life ."

The only time I could not carry out a normal, functioning life is when I was addicted to FFXI. The world revolved around this game at the time. Stopped exercising, gained 50 lbs, stopped cooking, grab takeout, etc. Yes I still went to work, etc, but spent sleep time up late every night playing, and all weekend. Neglected family, friends, etc.

I was a heavy marijuana user in college, guess there is a reason Vermont is called the Green Mountain state. Its all about self discipline, and I had no easy major, and graduated with that degree which has a 10-15% success rate.

"Both alcohol and pot will lower your peripheral vision, your reaction time, and impair your judgment."

Maybe for some people pot impairs reaction time, etc. I have had my best ice hockey games under the influence of pot, stats don't lie. Sometimes being mentally in tune makes all the difference in the world regarding whatever you are doing. People who know how to use pot to your advantage know exactly what I'm talking about. Mind over matter does wonders. Of course, its not for everyone. If you are lazy, it will make you even more lazy. If you are active, it will make you more active.

Point of this post is that the ONLY time I was out of control with my life was caused by this game, not by a substance.

 

[Miros]

If we ban talks of addictive things...then this forum should be gone since that what this game is sometimes. ; ;

 

[Sneakypants]

Drop the stiff and rigid crap. That's exactly what doesn't belong here.

 

[Sneakypants]

The forum racist should sooner be accepted than a facilitating drug discusser.

The big question is, "Should the forum allow "fanboy" sockpuppets?"

Hmmm, that's interesting.

 

[Trippyhippy]

The big question is, "Should the forum allow "fanboy" sockpuppets?"

Hmmm, that's interesting.

He could never truely quit us. He, ironiclly, is addicted.

 

[Firestreak]

There are many things that are legal now that were illegal before. Does something being illegal mean that discussion of it should be censored? If that's the case we'd be where we were hundreds of years ago.

 

[Cecilee]

It does not facilitate anyone to abuse drugs.

It sure as heck does. "Hey don't do that, this is much better." "I've never heard of that, thanks." Addictive and illegal are pseudocategories that skirt the issues. If by "it's not addictive" you emphasize that kids aren't going to become junkies on it, what's the real point of your emphasis? Does that negate the danger? No. We get that it's not crack. The issue is that it's destructive and dangerous to take medications for reasons other than their intended use. Illegality and addiction? Modifying factors, and that's all. They're not even primary factors as to why drug use discussion should not be tolerated on forums. It does facilitate people to abuse drugs. You consider yourself a variation of the sex ed teacher in an arena where there is no regulation, standards, or education. That's why there is usually moderation. If you want to be a drug ed teacher, that's only a counselling degree away. This is not the appropriate arena for such education. Get a degree if you want to teach. There's a shortage of real teachers and a gluttony of fake ones. Education is better than ignorance, but pseudoeducation is worse than ignorance. Asthma fatalities increased when nebulizers became popular, because nebulizers gave people a false sense of security. False sense of security is a dangerous thing.

This forum has decently high standards, which is why I'm surprised to see drug use so tolerated here. It doesn't really match the other level of oversight. It's sort of a blip in the screening. Drug use is a pretty serious thing for a board to decide that they're going to tolerate. Usually with that comes a lot of other things that they also tolerate that this board doesn't.

A. all the discussion about drugs isn't ignorant drivel.

Within every discussion about drugs is ignorant drivel. Fair enough.

or aspects about drugs, that people were planning to use, that made them change there mind.

Some is enough here.

C. Usually makes for a fun story.

I don't find a fifteen year-old who drinks Nyquil funny.

The point is we can do whatever we want within the confines of the law. As much as you want it not to be, talking about drugs is legal.

Again, irrelevant. That this board has rules is proof that it is irrelevant. If you can do anything you want within the confines of the law, then why does the board have any rules? The point is that you don't do whatever you want within the confines of the law here, and as such there is no particular reason why drug discussion should be a protected right.

Overall I'd rather see drug discussion remain for the previous mitigating reasons and the idea that people can peer pressure the drugophiles with the opportunity, but it still remains that the board would probably be a better place had there never been a drug discussion tolerance. You would have found something more productive to build an identity around. It would not have been missed, and you'd gain assurance that the forum isn't facilitating, promoting, and training something it shouldn't. It's not a good standard. It's a low standard.

 

[Cecilee]

The big question is, "Should the forum allow "fanboy" sockpuppets?"

Absolutely not. But he did say that if I didn't stop typing my bigass Democrat soapboxes that I'd get murdered. I should tone it down I suppose.