fighting drugs

i've discussed what lsd does and how we can stop the war already.

today, a guy i used to know started an argument on an unrelated thread and i could not help but begin responding (after a couple of others got involved). i'll call him sj. i might not always correct his spelling.

sj: does it mention that lsd causes long term damage to the psyche and causes major integration problems?

me: it does? 'cause i'd like to seem some kind of evidence. unless by "damage" and "integration" you mean respective to broken society. have you heard the story of plato's cave?

sj: http://www.thecyn.com/club-drug-addiction/long-term-effects-lsd.html

i am too lazy to reference a long stack of medical text books for you, but you get the picture there in a nice short format. i have had no sleep in two days so not at my best, but yes you should get enough general from that. there is one worse than that people with poor neuro chemistry can develop permanent psychosis, schizo affected disorders etc, also those with various disorders. also it's very reckless to cite one study because it somehow backs an irresponsible view point.

crystal meth is used for alzheimer's patients, that does not mean we should legalize it and have crack-heads running around.

basic drug types the world should avoid:
lsd
cocaine
e
meth
heroine

long-term abuse of cannabis (for reasons of no longer being able to be a productive member of society)

unless you plan to do this forever and no longer be danger to society: http://gizmodo.com/5904144/the-man-who-quit-money

in which case if you are not ever going to interact with other humans have at it, i also say some sort of free love orgy aspect should be thrown in, if you are going to have the drugs i sure as hell think you should have the sex.

just remember long term use of the first list, you will in about five years no longer be suitable to rejoin the human race. despite fostering firm delusions to the contrary.

oh, and another gem:
"several studies indicated possible chromosome breakage due to lsd use"

scrapper: a brochure taken from a recovery centre is hardly credible.
haven't you read a scanner darkly?

sj: phd in clinical pysch good enough? and the listed items are all common knowledge to anyone with a medical background. and seperate to that you can google it: http://bit.ly/Ic0qvs. besides, i assumed you didn't have pubmed subscriptions. it was later used to create (successfully i might add) a bunch of schizophrenics. if I remember the human rights violation case it was "the relevance of chemically-induced psychoses to schizophrenia."

long-term these people were no longer functional as human beings. neurologically about one percent of the population would be suitable for long term use of lsd. but not exceeding one year.

gco: there is no up-to-date long-term solid research performed on lsd because it has been made illegal a long time ago so all studies on it are illegal - i would like to see more up to date research performed on the affects of lsd as one person's website just doesnt cut it for me when it comes to anything, plus who says this woman is even a real phd?

scrapper: thanks for googling it for me.
i read a few articles, most state that it's hard to determine anything about the disorder, except that one you sent, which is published by a company who is making money off convincing people that acid is addictive.

for the phd argument, if you have ever tried to research milk, you'll find hundreds of "doctors" that will argue that it's the best for you. you don't need a degree in biochemistry to understand that that's bullcrap.

through induction i will propose the rule of not believing anyone who has a phd in something.

gco: agreed! there is a major problem with research performed by specific organizations that have agendas, even though all have agendas but some are quite biased. it depends who they are funded by, because the people paying them usually expect the results to go their way, so this is not accurate research...

the same agenda goes for legal drugs...

me: you sound like a walking poster-boy for war on drugs propaganda. please watch the union, pretty please try to get hold of a copy of leary on drugs, terence mckenna's food of the gods, check out the problem-solving psychedelic, and be amused that there is no such thing as an acid flashback - that last one totally took me by surprise.

if you want hallucination, our societal one that "drugs are bad, mmmkay?" is the worst of them. as gco said, the little research that has been done since 1973 shut the doors doesn't indicate any long-term negative effects. as for "inducing psychosis" - there are a lot of questions and very few answers, the most likely of them seem to be "subject was severely troubled to begin with".

i'm not saying that there are no risks or dangers, we're talking about substances that need to be treated with more than a little respect. but the benefits outweigh them by such a ridiculous margin as to make your argument silly. if they weren't illegal, they could be used responsibly.

and indeed - the legal drug trade is far scarier and far more dangerous than anything you can point to.

oh - and in response to your list of the usual suspects: e "safe as a horse ride"

sj: ok so lets just legalise heroin, and see how well that goes shall we? and while we are legalizing dangerous things the majority of people are too stupid to handle, lets legalize small children playing with loaded ak47s

i'm sure you can find reasoning to say that these two are with out consequence. let's foster an entire community of self indulgent drug addicts delusional enough to think they are in control. i nominate australia. we put them all there as a single utopian society, with no interaction with the clean people. then as a social experiment, we watch what happens.

if there is a functional society that is moving forward then we legalize stupidity globally. something tells me that in twenty years it will just be a bunch of useless and no-longer functional baked scum of no further use to society.

i suggest do a psych degree, then handle counseling for people with schizo affected disorder due to lsd or psychosis due to other drugs, listen to their endless self-absorbed agendas and the stupid equivocations they make as pretense to justify selfish behavior and then after the first 4000 sessions come talk to me about how they are perfectly normal human beings. and then tell me everyone should just have at it. we are no longer at 1970's berkeley where a bunch of people could not cope with having to get a job and function in a real world where society depends on them and decided to instead run away like a scared selfish children and get lost in drug culture. we are not children.

legalizing and encouraging people to act in a selfish indulgent diminished capacity, yeah some real rocket scientist thought that idea through. side effects of which include psychosis. yeah, great idea.

me: lol

1. there's no such thing as normal. as soon as you get off your high horse you might realize that there are other ways to live. some of us, like myself, mix and match because EVERYTHING in life is a choice, including who you are and who you want to be.

2. portugal’s drug experience: new study confirms decriminalization was a success

3. YOU are not a child. i plan on staying a child until i die, and i choose not to let other people's ideas of how i should run my life interfere. society can handle drug use, what it can't handle is micro-management.

sj: http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17c1zuzxduwkhgif/cmt-medium.gif

self-indulgence: great spiritual path, put others at risk. none of this ringing any moral or logical bells?

ok, do as you wish i will never again comment on addict-like behavior.

me: ‎iI suggest do a psych degree, then handle counseling for people with schizo affected disorder due to lsd or psychosis due to other drugs" - you did that?!?!?!

anyway, i suggest you actually reference some of the things i've linked to before continuing to jump up and down. there's a lot of confusion, and you've picked a side that's a lot more emotional than it is rational.

sj: no interest, arguing with addicts is a waste of time and energy always.

me: and of course, everyone who argues with you is an addict. well played, logical fallacy man.

sj: anyone who argues for a position that is harmful to others, to justify his own self indulgent needs is generally an addict. in order to even begin to win this you would need to win the argument of handing loaded guns to children is a good idea. (save you some time: you cant.)

me: this argument is officially over, you've not only declared your refusal to consider the overwhelming evidence against what you're saying, but you're pointing fingers and presuming my intentions as well, and you're putting it all together with fallacious irrationality.
there is a world of difference between a gun and a drug, and your placing them on the same ladder demonstrates that you are completely blinded by propaganda.

any further comments on this will be ignored.

---
in a private chat with sj, i suffered ad hominem attacks and his refusal to argue rationally. i gave up, frustrated.