Posts concerning drug use

[Trippyhippy]

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.

Name something in life that isn't dangerous. You are taking a calculated risk everytime you step out your front door. Would it be more dangerous if you ran into it in the real world and didn't have the chance to get an objective opinion, very much like I did in when I first did it?

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.

No, you consider me a variation of a sex ed teacher in an arena where there is no regulation, standards, or education. I consider myself a recreational drug user who is willing to share something that no drug ed teacher will ever tell you, and that is the truth. The truth is, it is highly unlikely that you will die or even sustain injuries of any sort when using the drugs that you will find me talking about. The truth is, drug ed teachers serve no purpose in the world today except to misinform all that they "educate". If you ask me, or anyone else that has first hand experience with multiple kinds of recreational drugs, the drug ed teachers are the ones that pseudoeducate.

They are actually the reason I have tried as many drugs as I have. After I realized they were flat out lying about Marijuana, I wanted to find out the truth about everything else I had been lied to about my whole life. Basiclly, reality is exactly opposite of the picture you are trying to paint.

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.

What else is usually tolerated along with drug use?

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

Within every discussion on a public forum is "ignorant drivel". A discussion is a discussion is a discussion.

Some is enough here.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Basiclly what I was trying to say was the exact opposite of what you were saying. The discussion could (and has) disuade people from using certain drugs.

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

No one said anything about Nyquil.

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.

That's where you are wrong. I do whatever I want, whenever I want to do it, wherever I want to do it. Fortunatly (for the rulemakers) what i do lies within the boundries of the rules. Otherwise, they would have to change.

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.

You remind me of someone that used to post here and was banned. He was wrong a lot too.

 

[Sneakypants]

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.

Honestly, I haven't been following the piddly shit that has been said. I don't know who "he" is. As long as we don't start jabbering abnout Dynamis, we might be ok here.

 

[toqabowl]

Hey there,

Now, I don't want to stand on a soap box and preach, but I'm going to. I sat on it for a while, and it's gotten to the point where it really bugs me. Posts on here that show/advocate/test drug use are out of line, in my honest opinion.

As we all know, there are younger individuals, and I mean people under the age of 18, that post and read these boards. I find it to be in high, high distaste to allow posts advocating or showing paraphanalea or drug use. I request that some action be taken regarding people that do this. The classic thread concerning a method to get high from in-store products, and the other, "I GOT HIGH AND BEAT MARIO" namely stand out to me.

The reason this stands out to me as highly inappropriate, does not stop at the fact that a younger audience views and participates here, but is also because of personal lifestyle choices, that myself, and I'm sure many others make. I have never done any sort of illegal drug, and I know others share that same perspective. I don't want to see, and I know others agree with me, posts, pictures, information, or any other thing, suggesting or showing good times while on drugs. Now, I made a post on Chuash's thread about this, and was promptly rated down by him for being "Nazi" about it, but really, it's common fucking sense. There are many on here, unspoken, that don't want to see this shit anymore, and I would greatly appreciate it if future posts of the sort, are edited, or deleted, and the poster warned about the content. I apologize for the rant, but it's really bugged me up til now, and I wanted to touch on it.

Thanks,
Mistra

a simple, easy answer for this is that its up to the mods and admins on these forums do decide what should be on here or not.

i have noticed those drug posts... but thats nothing, people will post that kind of stuff, but it not like youll see all these new posts about drugs everyday.

-- had to go back on topic cuz it was getting waaaayyy off the topic

i did read 'most' of the posts so im not sure if this was said

 

[Marajade]

There are bad drugs, and there are not so bad drugs, and there are drugs that aren't any worse for you than most other things out there. These so called educators would have you believe that they all fall under the first category. And while there are a good number that to, they aren't ALL super killer drugs.

Pot is a "gateway drug" because people that use it find out everyone is either lying or misinformed about it, and decide to find out if they're wrong in the other cases as well. Correct education is the key, and its what you'll find in an open setting like these boards. Will you on places like EBaums or 4Chan? No.

As long as we don't start jabbering abnout Dynamis, we might be ok here.

I'm taking bets on page numbers

 

[Stouter]

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.

Racial slurs are legal, it's only racist actions that aren't legal. Talking about child pornography is legal, it's just the actions and distributions that are illegal.

The point here is that a large enough number of people are uncomfortable with the subject, and feel that posts should be controlled and appropriately labeled. The same standards are held for other posts, look at any post with "NSFW" in the title, and find a similar one that doesn't contain that in the title.

 

[Cecilee]

Right. I honestly don't trust forum posters with drug education any more than I would trust a 4channer. I can't even remember the DARE program, but I've never been miseducated about the dangers of marijuana, even in the bible belt. I've never had to unlearn something that a drug ed taught, because they didn't really teach anything. Maybe I live in a more moderate area, but I find even experienced forum druggies to be worse sources than those I've seen in the schools. They usually go way past moderation and the truth into a retaliatory prodrug stance. The Antidrug rep who warns you that MJ kills is useless. The prodrug rep who basically speaks their own mind as if that's good enough to give them a podium is dangerous. I'd take useless over dangerous, but I'd rather have neither. Combine the two of you and maybe there's some voice that is neither useless nor dangerous, but until then I'd rather the both of em just take a seat and back off. This is not the place.

I distrust forum drug discussers with the charge of educating people to abuse drugs safely, and I would be more comfortable letting the primary care office, ED and the phone lines be the educators here. Many people agree. As such, drug pundits are speaking on a borrowed platform with shaky permission-a permission that has been removed for good reason elsewhere, and that good reason is that we have no way to regulate the discussion coming out of your mouth. I don't trust Trippy because while he has experienced himself, he is not educated in the art of others. Even if I did trust Trippy, the next Joe has an open mic and he could be an idiot.

These are chemical receptors and enzymatic active sites. Personal drug history is not a sufficient enough merit badge. I know people like to think that they're doing good, but in reality they just have a false sense of security. This is a PCP deal. Primary care physicians make better drug educators. Get the kid a bond with their pediatrician if you really want people to be better educated about drug use.

This here isn't helping. It's only balancing out the teeter-totter. On one side is a 1970's MJ kills soccermom. On the other side is a pothead intellectual. I don't believe in either. They both test positive for benzos.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Right. I honestly don't trust forum posters with drug education any more than I would trust a 4channer. I can't even remember the DARE program, but I've never been miseducated about the dangers of marijuana, even in the bible belt. I've never had to unlearn something that a drug ed taught, because they didn't really teach anything. Maybe I live in a more moderate area, but I find even experienced forum druggies to be worse sources than those I've seen in the schools. They usually go way past moderation and the truth into a retaliatory prodrug stance. The Antidrug rep who warns you that MJ kills is useless. The prodrug rep who basically speaks their own mind as if that's good enough to give them a podium is dangerous. I'd take useless over dangerous, but I'd rather have neither. Combine the two of you and maybe there's some voice that is neither useless nor dangerous, but until then I'd rather the both of em just take a seat and back off. This is not the place.

How is what I talk about dangerous in any way? By telling people how to not have a bad experience with drugs?

I distrust forum drug discussers with the charge of educating people to abuse drugs safely, and I would be more comfortable letting the primary care office, ED and the phone lines be the educators here. Many people agree. As such, drug pundits are speaking on a borrowed platform with shaky permission-a permission that has been removed for good reason elsewhere, and that good reason is that we have no way to regulate the discussion coming out of your mouth. I don't trust Trippy because while he has experienced himself, he is not educated in the art of others. Even if I did trust Trippy, the next Joe has an open mic and he could be an idiot.

That's right, the next joe does have an open mike, and you are free to disagree with what he says. You are free to call bullshit on any of us at any time. It is open discussion. How is open discussion about anything bad? Is it bad to get an objective opinion?

These are chemical receptors and enzymatic active sites. Personal drug history is not a sufficient enough merit badge. I know people like to think that they're doing good, but in reality they just have a false sense of security. This is a PCP deal. Primary care physicians make better drug educators. Get the kid a bond with their pediatrician if you really want people to be better educated about drug use.

Much of what I know about drugs comes directly from my PCP. He tells me all about any drug I ask him about. He thinks pot should be legal too. Oh noes! A liberal doctor!

This here isn't helping. It's only balancing out the teeter-totter. On one side is a 1970's MJ kills soccermom. On the other side is a pothead intellectual. I don't believe in either. They both test positive for benzos.

While I do take pills that can be used to treat bi-polar disorder, they are not benzodiazepines. I take Tegretol for epileptic siezures. I have never actually taken Benzodiazepines because I don't like taking pills. It is way to easy to get something that someone tells you is one thing that turns out to be something else, like people giving out buspar and telling everyone it's a Xanax Totem Pole. It's that kind of shit that gets people killed. Everyone I've ever known that overdosed on anything did it in pill form.

Of course, everyone should pay no attention to me, ignore my warnings, and I shouldn't even be allowed to post about that here because Cecillee doesn't trust me.

 

[Cecilee]

Part of the drawback to drug use is having bad experiences with them. If you take that away with tips hints and suggestions, that makes drug use more inticing, and by weighing the new pros that you handed them they may be more likely to use drugs. Are they safer for it? Depends on whether you just busted their threshould for stopping drug use. If they would have stopped because using drugs sucked to them, then now they're not safer. If they didn't stop, now they just have a false sense of security. As was previously mentioned, we were all surprised to find that asthmatic deaths increased when we all started puffing on inhalers. People figured, "Oh I'm not so bad I'll just keep inhaling and it'll go away." Kept saying that until they couldn't breathe. Similarly, people armed with tips and hints about better highs are still holding the knife backwards. Being an asthmatic is a bigger deal than many people think. Being a drug user is a bigger deal than many people think. Knowing how to use and abuse drugs "well" is a false sense of security. Your information probably doesn't decrease morbidity and mortality because it facilitates activity in an inherently morbid and mortal arena.

Every PCP should tell you all about any drug you ask about, which is why it's their realm. This isn't an open discussion here. It only has the potential to be when the correct people are around. Any other time, it's dangerous and stupid and usually facilitates rather than discourages. Hence, moderation is needed.

 

[Cecilee]

As far as comparing levels of danger, you have to prove to me that using drugs is about as safe sitting and watching television for three hours a day. To do that, you have to find out how many people do it, how many people are hurt from it. You have to find out how many people use drugs, and how many people are hurt from it. Direct causal relationship also comes into play. The only way to be seen in the ER for eating KFC is to choke on it. To not eat is to die. Lesser of two evils. The only way to be seen in the ER for drug use is to use drugs. The only people I've seen overdose on drugs, naturally, are those who took them. Again, these are receptor sites and enzyme functions. You'd better be sure you're not talking about vast degree differences in risk before comparing drug use to other everyday risks. Drug use is not an every day risk.

To successfuly argue that other harmful things are allowed, you have to come up with something about as risky as drug use that directly causes harm. To get from overvideogaming to dying is a 20 step process. There are direct, negative consequences to drug use that are parallelled only by demolitions discussions. Hey guys, what's the best way to get out of rape charges? Not acceptable. It's the combination of the illegality of the subject and the direct causal relationship between use and bad outcomes that makes this subject worth nixing.

 

[Marajade]

Part of the drawback to drug use is having bad experiences with them.

And by hearing information from people who've HAD those bad experiences and can thus show others how to avoid them, you reduce the risk. There are so few real drug educators out there to begin with, most of the false ones simply being people preaching that they're all satans tools or somesuch.

All drugs are not in fact created equal, and THATS the information that you're likely to get in this kind of setting, and its one of the most important pieces of information.

 

[Cecilee]

They don't post about their experiences to warn others. They post to get advice so they can get high and not go through it again, or they're just looking for attention. They're not showing anything except interest in escalating their practice. It's true that the overwhelming majority of false drug eds are in the antidrug category. Just not on the internet, where people often overpreach how safe some of these methods are in retaliation and opposition to the classic antidrug thumpers.

I'm not as concerned with the mortality (death) that these discussions could foster as I am with the morbidity (harm) that they can. In the sense that all drugs can often be immature coping mechanisms to underlying problems, they're all the same. In the sense that they all jack biochemistry up, they're all the same. In the sense that they're often being abused by a young, influenceable, naive group, they're all the same.

I don't agree with some of the assessments on this forum as to which drugs are and aren't safe. You're right. It is important information, and it's wrong on here.

 

[Trippyhippy]

They don't post about their experiences to warn others. They post to get advice so they can get high and not go through it again, or they're just looking for attention. They're not showing anything except interest in escalating their practice. It's true that the overwhelming majority of false drug eds are in the antidrug category. Just not on the internet, where people often overpreach how safe some of these methods are in retaliation and opposition to the classic antidrug thumpers.

I'm not as concerned with the mortality (death) that these discussions could foster as I am with the morbidity (harm) that they can. In the sense that all drugs can often be immature coping mechanisms to underlying problems, they're all the same. In the sense that they all jack biochemistry up, they're all the same. In the sense that they're often being abused by a young, influenceable, naive group, they're all the same.

I don't agree with some of the assessments on this forum as to which drugs are and aren't safe. You're right. It is important information, and it's wrong on here.

We get it. You have quite obviously never tried any of these things you have such a strong opinion on. We get it. You think there is no difference between a user and abuser. We get it. It is readily apparent you have no idea what you are talking about. I think the main difference is i think you should be allowed to speak out against it, but you don't think anyone should be allowed to speak in favor of it. All because you don't want to do it yourself.

I really think everyone should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else. I really do. It just gets complicated when people like you only want to restrict what others can and can't do.

 

[Sneakypants]

you have to prove to me

Wrong.

 

[Canitoch]

I don't care if people talk about drugs. (I don't use them) I don't care if people discuss about drugs' use etc. But I believe telling where you can buy it and how much it is, is crossing the line a bit. (look at the groovy new drug thread here http://www.qcdn.org/ffxi/showthread.php?t=46996)

I think the OP shouldn't of told where you can get it. But that's just me.

 

[Cecilee]

We get it. You have quite obviously never tried any of these things you have such a strong opinion on. We get it. You think there is no difference between a user and abuser.

You've quite obviously never been more trained in the use and abuse of drugs past your own personal experience, "augmented" by the prodrug internet backforums' typical paranoid reactionist rhetoric. Whereas you've seen some of your friends do stupid things and think that's enough to make you a pundit, I hear and see hundreds of your friends a year. You think there's a difference between a user and abuser, but I hate to inform you that you, as a user, is the only one who bothers making the distinction. The people who deal with drug users stopped that futile argument almost a decade ago. Use versus abuse, dependence versus addiction is a purely user-end pseudoacademic defense mechanism to argue that you're still in control of yourself. It's a fake discussion. To those of us watching you all rotate in and out of ER's on a yearly basis, any illegal use of drugs and any use of drugs outside their intended therapeutic affect is drug abuse. We take the term abuse even further to include tobacco smokers of more than a pack a day. Why? Because your false sense of control doesn't keep you all out of the emergency rooms, and that you label yourself a user versus an abuser doesn't correlate to any realworld difference. We pump your stomachs just the same and let you call yourself what you want to call yourself. I've seen dozens of teens and twenties who ripped a dumb idea off the internet. I've never seen one teen or twenty with a more positive outcome due to people like you educating them.

You use drugs. I don't. True. I'm not around when your drug use goes right. I'm there when it goes wrong. You have more experience on your armchair smoking weed and having a good time. I have more experience when you run into a lamppost with your civic while smoking weed and hemorrhaging. You have no idea how safe or unsafe these combinations are. You haven't seen enough users attempt them. You see a biased population because you talk of yourself and your own experience and try to generalize it broadly. You get your information from other extreme internet-going drug users, all with the same prodrug brainwashed mentality that is equalled only by the mentality that marijuana fiends will be the undoing of the nation's youth. You consistently underreport the frequency at which your advice is a dumb idea, because you are not equipped with such experience. That's why your PCP should continue to educate you, and you should cease trying to educate others. Your PCP just knows better and is better-suited for the job. He sees both you, who seems to be a responsible drug user, and he also sees the others. It's that kind of person who squats the spectrum who should be talking. You don't squat the spectrum. You said yourself that you started your drug use as a reaction to not liking what the other end of the spectrum had to say. How do you know that you're not them only opposite? You sound like it to me. It's the same thing with the religion discussion. You are as extreme as the people you're fighting. You just have a negative sign. Why do you consistently set yourself up as a polarity? This isn't about one side being absolutely wrong and the other side fighting with truth on their side. If you go too far out on either end, you're going to end up wrong, which you often are.

Drug discussion on the general public internet forum should not be allowed, in part, because one side is consistently underrepresented. There are too many paranoid drug pundits with keyboards shouting against The Man who tried to trick them into thinking drug use is bad. Antidrug messages get beaten down on the internet and lumped in with the "liars" of middle school. You're doing it right now. "I have no idea what I'm talking about because I don't use drugs." Really. I need all the brain cells I can get to keep your students from losing theirs when your advice takes the turn that didn't show up on your Google map.

 

[Trippyhippy]

You've quite obviously never been more trained in the use and abuse of drugs past your own personal experience, "augmented" by the prodrug internet backforums' typical paranoid reactionist rhetoric. Whereas you've seen some of your friends do stupid things and think that's enough to make you a pundit, I hear and see hundreds of your friends a year. You think there's a difference between a user and abuser, but I hate to inform you that you, as a user, is the only one who bothers making the distinction. The people who deal with drug users stopped that futile argument almost a decade ago. Use versus abuse, dependence versus addiction is a purely user-end pseudoacademic defense mechanism to argue that you're still in control of yourself. It's a fake discussion. To those of us watching you all rotate in and out of ER's on a yearly basis, any illegal use of drugs and any use of drugs outside their intended therapeutic affect is drug abuse.

So the fact that I've never been to the ER for an overdose of anything makes no difference. The fact that there are millions who don't rotate in and out of the ER is of little use to you because you wish to be on the side of the arguement that likes to ignore part of the facts. That's your perogative.

We take the term abuse even further to include tobacco smokers of more than a pack a day.

So am I not addicted to tobbaco since I only smoke a pack every 2 days? Does that put me in the Use catergory?

Why? Because your false sense of control doesn't keep you all out of the emergency rooms, and that you label yourself a user versus an abuser doesn't correlate to any realworld difference.

My sense of control doesn't keep other people out of emergency rooms. My sense of control keeps me out of emergency rooms.

We pump your stomachs just the same and let you call yourself what you want to call yourself. I've seen dozens of teens and twenties who ripped a dumb idea off the internet. I've never seen one teen or twenty with a more positive outcome due to people like you educating them.

I have never had my stomach pumped, and I have never done any drug that I first heard about on the internet. Just because you see one thousand people a year who can't control theirself, doesn't mean there isn't another million out there that can.

You use drugs. I don't. True. I'm not around when your drug use goes right. I'm there when it goes wrong. You have more experience on your armchair smoking weed and having a good time. I have more experience when you run into a lamppost with your civic while smoking weed and hemorrhaging. You have no idea how safe or unsafe these combinations are. You haven't seen enough users attempt them.

I don't drive when I'm high, and I can count on 1 hand all the different kinds of drugs I would be willing to do. You act like discussion about marijuana or corriciden is me advocating the use of crack, heroin and oxycontin. Your pretty far removed from reality.

You see a biased population because you talk of yourself and your own experience and try to generalize it broadly. You get your information from other extreme internet-going drug users, all with the same prodrug brainwashed mentality that is equalled only by the mentality that marijuana fiends will be the undoing of the nation's youth. You consistently underreport the frequency at which your advice is a dumb idea, because you are not equipped with such experience.

If you haven't been reading my posts, you might come to that conclusion. Anyone that cares to actually read what I type knows better. I know drugs are bad for you. I know certain drugs are better suited for some people and not others. You show me where I have given advice that is a "dumb idea" and I'll just stop posting.

That's why your PCP should continue to educate you, and you should cease trying to educate others. Your PCP just knows better and is better-suited for the job. He sees both you, who seems to be a responsible drug user, and he also sees the others. It's that kind of person who squats the spectrum who should be talking.

Yeah, because in 10 years of drug use, I've never seen anyone have a bad trip. I've definatly not had one myself, especially not one that scared me away from doing stupid shit like taking handfuls of corriciden.

Oh wait, yes I have.

You don't squat the spectrum. You said yourself that you started your drug use as a reaction to not liking what the other end of the spectrum had to say.

I said I started using drugs because i had been lied to, not because I just didn't like what they were saying. There is a big difference there.

How do you know that you're not them only opposite? You sound like it to me. It's the same thing with the religion discussion. You are as extreme as the people you're fighting. You just have a negative sign. Why do you consistently set yourself up as a polarity? This isn't about one side being absolutely wrong and the other side fighting with truth on their side. If you go too far out on either end, you're going to end up wrong, which you often are.

It's called having an opinion based on personal experience. Get off the fence and try it sometime.

Drug discussion on the general public internet forum should not be allowed, in part, because one side is consistently underrepresented. There are too many paranoid drug pundits with keyboards shouting against The Man who tried to trick them into thinking drug use is bad. Antidrug messages get beaten down on the internet and lumped in with the "liars" of middle school. You're doing it right now. "I have no idea what I'm talking about because I don't use drugs." Really. I need all the brain cells I can get to keep your students from losing theirs when your advice takes the turn that didn't show up on your Google map.

Ya see, here is where you way off base. I am not trying to teach anyone anything. I am trying to have open discussion about something. You think it's all misinformation if I talk about anything but the negative aspects on the topic, and misinformation is worse than ignorance. The thing about that is, i do not present my opinion as factual information. I relate experiences I have had, and I discourage things that I believe are harmful while not encouraging drug use at all.

Discussion does not facilitate anyone to abuse drugs. All it does is give people an opinion to consider, very much like any other discussion.

This arguement seems to be over, and you lost. Discussion about drugs will continue to be allowed on this forum reguardles of what you say or think, because the majority agrees with me. Any questions?

 

[Garvin]

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

Apparently yes.

 

[Sneakypants]

You've quite obviously never been more trained in the use and abuse of drugs past your own personal experience, "augmented" by the prodrug internet backforums' typical paranoid reactionist rhetoric. Whereas you've seen some of your friends do stupid things and think that's enough to make you a pundit, I hear and see hundreds of your friends a year. You think there's a difference between a user and abuser, but I hate to inform you that you, as a user, is the only one who bothers making the distinction. The people who deal with drug users stopped that futile argument almost a decade ago. Use versus abuse, dependence versus addiction is a purely user-end pseudoacademic defense mechanism to argue that you're still in control of yourself. It's a fake discussion. To those of us watching you all rotate in and out of ER's on a yearly basis, any illegal use of drugs and any use of drugs outside their intended therapeutic affect is drug abuse. We take the term abuse even further to include tobacco smokers of more than a pack a day. Why? Because your false sense of control doesn't keep you all out of the emergency rooms, and that you label yourself a user versus an abuser doesn't correlate to any realworld difference. We pump your stomachs just the same and let you call yourself what you want to call yourself. I've seen dozens of teens and twenties who ripped a dumb idea off the internet. I've never seen one teen or twenty with a more positive outcome due to people like you educating them.

You use drugs. I don't. True. I'm not around when your drug use goes right. I'm there when it goes wrong. You have more experience on your armchair smoking weed and having a good time. I have more experience when you run into a lamppost with your civic while smoking weed and hemorrhaging. You have no idea how safe or unsafe these combinations are. You haven't seen enough users attempt them. You see a biased population because you talk of yourself and your own experience and try to generalize it broadly. You get your information from other extreme internet-going drug users, all with the same prodrug brainwashed mentality that is equalled only by the mentality that marijuana fiends will be the undoing of the nation's youth. You consistently underreport the frequency at which your advice is a dumb idea, because you are not equipped with such experience. That's why your PCP should continue to educate you, and you should cease trying to educate others. Your PCP just knows better and is better-suited for the job. He sees both you, who seems to be a responsible drug user, and he also sees the others. It's that kind of person who squats the spectrum who should be talking. You don't squat the spectrum. You said yourself that you started your drug use as a reaction to not liking what the other end of the spectrum had to say. How do you know that you're not them only opposite? You sound like it to me. It's the same thing with the religion discussion. You are as extreme as the people you're fighting. You just have a negative sign. Why do you consistently set yourself up as a polarity? This isn't about one side being absolutely wrong and the other side fighting with truth on their side. If you go too far out on either end, you're going to end up wrong, which you often are.

Drug discussion on the general public internet forum should not be allowed, in part, because one side is consistently underrepresented. There are too many paranoid drug pundits with keyboards shouting against The Man who tried to trick them into thinking drug use is bad. Antidrug messages get beaten down on the internet and lumped in with the "liars" of middle school. You're doing it right now. "I have no idea what I'm talking about because I don't use drugs." Really. I need all the brain cells I can get to keep your students from losing theirs when your advice takes the turn that didn't show up on your Google map.

Honestly, everything here still falls under the "you have to prove to me" bucket.
The Internet doesn't care about your opinion, professional or not. The fact is, drugs are ok to talk about. One can speak of them in high regard or trash them. I'm not taking any sides, other than to say the discussion of drugs is one that will continue on.

If people make mistakes, hopefully they learn from those mistakes. If people spout off about things they think they know, and add that underrepresentation of one side of the discussion is a large part of their reasoning that drugs in general should not be discussed on the Internet, perhaps they are the ones smoking crack?

Only thing worth shit in this all of that, is this:

This isn't about one side being absolutely wrong and the other side fighting with truth on their side. If you go too far out on either end, you're going to end up wrong, which you often are.

"Too far"...
Would be removing discussion of drugs. For every person that is improperly informing the public, you have the opportunity to correct them, and everyone else has the opportunity to weigh their options and make their own decisions. When people make decisions based on false information, that is not the fault of the Internet. This is not a problem in itself either. Internet discussions are not making people do more drugs than they already are. GG.

 

[Darkdante]

We should be like China and have filtering software on the interwebs.

That way we could control information and the spread of knowledge to the citizens of America and only allow what the politicians deem appropriate. And have a great country like China is right now.

Because we all know most people are too dumb to figure out whats right and whats wrong for themselves right?

Freedom is sometimes not worth the price we pay?

Freedom of information. HA! What were those stupid fuckers who thought up the internet thinking?

 

[Alyada]

Cecilee. Seriously. Put the thesaurus down.