worm Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 I'm sure that the sites you refer to exist. The practices you refer may well exist, but not in government, of that I am 100% certain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 It doesn't even matter. s0ome academic you are, then. It matters a lot. Either you're a liar trying to subvert this discussion with bullshit, or there's a massive govt scandal to be exposed. Given how you won't get into detail about any of the vague things you've said, it doesn't take a genius.. Unless you're going to give some *real* specifics? And if you won't, it again doesn't take a genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdoujaparov Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 No you aren't. Maybe you didn't come across the controversy in 2006 when one of the companies was found to have supplied a governmental agency/agent with data. It was ruled that there was nothing wrong with it. Ahhh, whatever, I'm completely bored of this now. It doesn't even matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 (edited) there's as much substance to worm's words here as there's been with so much else. My particular favourite was his claim of having a USA bank account, despite never having been to the USA. Edited September 26, 2012 by eFestivals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcademicPistol Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 s0ome academic you are, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed209 Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 bum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spindles Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 You might as well say an adrenaline rush on a fairground ride, or a sugar rush from sweets is a gateway experience to wanting more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus Gwertigan Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Indeed, or coffee or tea. The gateway myth is exactly that. I know plenty of people who use cocaine and ketamine but would never consider smoking a spliff and have never done so. I have smoked a spliff but would never consider taking cocaine or ketamine. The simple truth is: Every single person is different, every single person is motivated by their own experiences, tolerances, desires and needs. Trying to legislate for this is complex, our solutions in law are over-simplified as we try to apply a "one size fits all" policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Back in the 80's I was taught about the link of cannabis as a trigger for some psychoses, and it is only now that the idea is widely accepted. the thing is, there's no less of a link with alcohol to that. Where's the fuss about alcohol, which is causing hugely more cases? It's also the case that the total number of instances of psychosis are not really increasing - which is the real evidence in this idea. It gets to show that weed is a trigger, but not a cause; and that if weed isn't smoked the psychosis is very likely to happen anyway, triggered by something else. Weed's place in this idea is being massively overplayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus Gwertigan Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 the thing is, there's no less of a link with alcohol to that. Where's the fuss about alcohol, which is causing hugely more cases? It's also the case that the total number of instances of psychosis are not really increasing - which is the real evidence in this idea. It gets to show that weed is a trigger, but not a cause; and that if weed isn't smoked the psychosis is very likely to happen anyway, triggered by something else. Weed's place in this idea is being massively overplayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 I am not arguing either way. For me it is just helpful to understand the possible triggers. I think it is positive to understand the dangers with anything. There are people out there who appear to be more susceptible to some mental illnesses and giving them more understanding to possible triggers can only be a good thing. However what you do end up with is an argument of opposites. Every substance has its dangers one side wants to deny them and the other over exaggerate them. It's a good thing for people to know the dangers of anything, but only when considered proportionally with other similar dangers. Otherwise you end up with a fucked up society - just as we have - where the fear of crime is far greater than the actuality of crime, and those fears start to further distort society. A great example is all of the people who wouldn't go to Northern Ireland during the troubles because "I might get blown up", and yet they had no problem at all driving their car which had thousands of times the risk of death as a holiday in NI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus Gwertigan Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 It's a good thing for people to know the dangers of anything, but only when considered proportionally with other similar dangers. Otherwise you end up with a fucked up society - just as we have - where the fear of crime is far greater than the actuality of crime, and those fears start to further distort society. A great example is all of the people who wouldn't go to Northern Ireland during the troubles because "I might get blown up", and yet they had no problem at all driving their car which had thousands of times the risk of death as a holiday in NI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spindles Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Heh, interesting vacation choice. I'll stick to my bicycle tour of the sites and sounds of Afghanistan wearing a "jesus saves" T-shirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus Gwertigan Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Heh, interesting vacation choice. I'll stick to my bicycle tour of the sites and sounds of Afghanistan wearing a "jesus saves" T-shirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feral chile Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 the thing is, there's no less of a link with alcohol to that. Where's the fuss about alcohol, which is causing hugely more cases? It's also the case that the total number of instances of psychosis are not really increasing - which is the real evidence in this idea. It gets to show that weed is a trigger, but not a cause; and that if weed isn't smoked the psychosis is very likely to happen anyway, triggered by something else. Weed's place in this idea is being massively overplayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worm Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Drugs aren't the problem. Drug use is often a symptom of a problem, whether sociological or psychological. This gateway bollocks assumes that everyone has the same conditional constraints and the same psychological needs and desires. It's the kind of positivist theory I'm on about. The government and the law bases itself on this type of w*nk. Models pertaining to social constructivism are by far the best. People turn to certain behaviours, such as taking whatever drug, as an expression of something. Sometimes it's to identify with a criminal out-group culture as an expression of feeling outcast, sometimes it's as an opiate to numb the banal reality of their miserable existence. And so on and so forth. It's really fucking obvious if you just stop to think a little. The government have no way of applying this to law though as it's too complicated and costly. There ya are. Nailed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worm Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Source? Or it's just words... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdoujaparov Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Fucking hell fire. If I said hello you'd want proof. Do you have normal conversations where you're from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus Gwertigan Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 I watched with interest the thing on 4 last night. However I did dine myself getting a little angry, so much in fact that I sent off an email to the programme. I will be watching tonight though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred quimby Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 I watched with interest the thing on 4 last night. However I did dine myself getting a little angry, so much in fact that I sent off an email to the programme. I will be watching tonight though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus Gwertigan Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 It was based around the ex squaddie and the swathing assumptions they made on air about the effect on other military men. I do question his own honesty, but rather than discuss his motivations before hand it was just accepted that soldiers would resist the process. Given that this is supposed to be "scientific" and something the powers that be will point to, I would have thought they would have given more thought to their comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worm Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Where I come from, the whole point of introducing specificities into an argument is to justify your position - you cannot do that if you cannot substantiate the point you are seeking to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdoujaparov Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Who made it an argument like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyhack Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Aren't a couple of the problems the belief that "I'll be able to handle it" and also the view of many young people that they're virtually indestructible? As you get older and start going to a few more funerals you become much more aware of your own mortality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdoujaparov Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Aren't a couple of the problems the belief that "I'll be able to handle it" and also the view of many young people that they're virtually indestructible? As you get older and start going to a few more funerals you become much more aware of your own mortality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.