Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

"I'd rather my son take a more proactive, less habitual drug....

Taken completely out of context:

"I'd rather my son take a more proactive, less habitual drug like cocaine, than lock himself away and play video games" says Roxanne Richardson, 35, who has a young son, and is expecting another. "It's so lazy. At least with pills and coke you're out and about doing something."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article337171.ece
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 10th, 2006
>> At least with pills and coke you're out and about doing something. <<

Like.... stealing the neighbor's car?
Permalink example 
January 10th, 2006
Yes, because all coke users are also car thieves. (Didn't we cover this one already? :)
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 10th, 2006
I have no problem with the idea that drugs are harmful. Um, duh? Next some moron will say that jumping headfirst from the top of the empire state building and splattering your brains over the pavement only hurts people who do it too often.

However, three points:

1) The current system is, and always will, be moderately ineffective at stopping people from using drugs. There are better alternatives for helping people.

2) Some people need to be given the job of visiting the parents of children who were killed by drunk drivers and children who were raped and beaten by drunken parents and shelters where women hide from drunken husbands and explain that alchohol is a valuable social product and that it never does any real harm. The idea that regular drug use is bad but occasional drinking is ok is stupid. Excessive alchohol consuption regularly causes the death of innocents, which seems to me to be much worse than only affecting the actual drug user.

3) If you don't want to help people, why the obsession with controlling how they live their lives? Noone promised you that your family would spend their lives pleasing you, noone promised you that random strangers would only do things that you approve of - so quit being arrogant control freaks. It doesn't matter if drugs are dangerous: that doesn't give you the right to control other people.


> Yes, because all coke users are also car thieves. (Didn't we cover this one already? :)

Well, actually, a significant portion of drug users simply have to be criminals, because they need to pay very high prices for their drugs. Curiously, this isn't quite the case with legal drugs, where prices are remarkably lower. The organsiation that puts the most effort into raising the price of illegal drugs is, of course, the police.

The average kid with a $100/day habit won't be getting that cash from their paper route or lemonade stand.

I can't possibly imagine why stricter laws and harsher punishments won't solve the problem, though. It worked so well at eliminating alchohol use, after all.
Permalink  
January 10th, 2006
Damn. Too bad it appears to be a non-free article. I'd like to read it, but not THAT badly.

Philo
Permalink bionicroach 
January 10th, 2006
Huh. It was free five minutes ago.

Here's how I found it:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/10/parent-prefers-kid-dabbling-in-coke-over-playing-video-games/

Basically, the article is about how pot causes psychosis because it's much stronger now than it was before and how this is more of a problem in England because of some sort of changes in the law.

The quote was about pot use and how kids lock themselves in their room and wach TV all day when smoking pot, but not with coke.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 10th, 2006
Cannabis was downgraded from a Class B to a Class C drug, which means posession for ones own use is a fine.

With developments like Skunk and that generally THC levels are supposed to be far higher than in the past there are a lot of people hand waving that consistent use increases the chance of schizophrenia by a factor of 3. Somoeone might also point out that such people may well be schizopherenic or mildly paranoid anyway and not exhibit too many symptoms ordinarily but that they are magnified when not stoned.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 11th, 2006
Hm. Very, very high risk of lung cancer vs. 3x average risk of schizophrenia.

If pot is illegal, why aren't cigarettes too?

Never heard a good answer to that question.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 11th, 2006
We all know perfectly well why cigarettes are still legal.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
Becaus they're awesome!!!
Permalink Zoot 
January 11th, 2006
Because lung cancer 30 years from now is more socially acceptable than psychosis tomorrow?
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 11th, 2006
My guess would be MONEY!
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 11th, 2006
"If pot is illegal, why aren't cigarettes too?

Never heard a good answer to that question."

I've answered this for you every time you bring it up. Cigarettes are already de facto illegal... you can't smoke them anywhere. They dont put lighters in cars anymore, you cant smoke in bars, at the office, at restarurants, etc... The government has added a 50% or higher tax in many states so a pack that cost $5, maybe $2 goes to the cigarette company.

Cigarettes are only legal because their dangers were unknown for long enough to get half the country addicted. You can't ban something that have the country is chemically addicted to. Don't worry, give it time and it will be either completely illegal to buy a pack, too prohibitively expensive to buy one, or simply no fun since there is no where to smoke them and too great a social stigma.
Permalink Phil 
January 11th, 2006
I don't know, I still see plenty of high schoolers with packs in their back pockets. Holy shit do I want to scream at those kids. Especially living in my town, with good schools. They can't plead ignorance so it must be stupidity.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
My sister tels me that all those anti-smoking commercials just remind her to light up. "Oh yeah, I could be smoking right now."

You didn't *really* think they were trying to get you to stop smoking, did you?
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 11th, 2006
Well your sister will have lots of fun down the road when she puts her family in misery while they watch her die painfully and slowly of emphysema.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
>I've answered this for you every time you bring it up.

And I told you that I've never heard a good answer.

>Cigarettes are already de facto illegal...

This one's probably the funniest wrong answer though ;)
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 11th, 2006
Tobacco isn't because it isn't a minority drug and in the early years of the last century its side effects where less apparent than that of the one's which were banned.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 11th, 2006
Colm...its like Prohibition...they tried to make alcohol illegal... people practically rioted. If enough people were using weed it couldn't be illegal either. The only difference between why cigarettes are legal and marijuana isn't is that one had a very large installed base by the time its negative effects were known and the other didn't. Cocaine and opium had a pretty large base too in the late 1800s, if you look at the history of how that was outlawed it wasn't a very easy process either.
Permalink Phil 
January 11th, 2006
Except cannabis, which was banned on the basis of complete nonsense like Reefer Madness.
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 11th, 2006
Potheads are too lazy and full of pizza to riot.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
We might not have the energy or inclination to riot, but we can cause a world shortage of KitKats and Pot Noodles, so you'd better not upset us!
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 11th, 2006
How bad is just plain tobacco?
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 11th, 2006
Rolling tobacco (which is what I assume you mean by "plain tobacco") is slightly better in that it tends to contain fewer additives, but then it's can also be much worse as it's more readily smoked without a filter (although that's swings and roundabouts -- the increased nicotine hit may cause you to smoke less and thus balance out the difference).

I smoke rollies mostly for cost reasons -- 20 "premium" cigarettes will set me back somewhere in the region of &#163;5, and for the same price I can get 25g of tobacco and make 100+ rollies. (The exact quantity depends, obviously, on how fat you make them.)
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 11th, 2006
Yeah, by "just plain" I meant "what they smoked in the 1700s."

I wasn't referring to addictiveness, though, I was talking about how likely is it to cause lung cancer, etc.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 11th, 2006
You're essentially describing a cigar or a pipe, both of which still cause various types of lip, mouth and throat cancer.
Permalink Phil 
January 11th, 2006
I understand one of the reasons that cannabis was banned was due to Eqyptian lobbying, in a backhanded attempt to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 11th, 2006
It's no more or less harmful than any other form of tobacco, really -- the only upside is the lack of additional crap (it's pretty much just shredded leaves, whereas normal fags have delightful things like saltpeter in them), but it's still going to kill you all the same.
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 11th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics