Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
THanks, I just hope that 2moro I don't seizure up or have the withdraw symptoms such as sever diarrhea and feeling as if you are dying. The 2 week meds should stop this, but I am set on getting this sorted out once and for all. I have stared death in the face and been on the verge of madness causing me to nearly commit maybe the worse crime.
More people drive cars than do drugs. That is the reason for more car accidents. Also car driving is neccessary to hold a job if you are not independently wealthy have public transport or working at home. Drugs are not essential.
I do feel marijuana should be legal. But it should have some of the same things in place as smoking cigarettes. Taxes and pretty much only smoking at home. There should also be laws about possession in a car to discourage driving under the influence of marijuana and higher penalties for kids under 18 in a group in possession, suspension of license. The reason is that inexperienced users are particularly dangerous in a car. Please don't argue "I can drive stoned". I know its not the same as drunk and that old people drive worse sometimes. Anyhow.
Vilhjalmr, I honestly do not know what your trying to say, are you seriously trying to tell me that we should not tell kids or anyone that drugs can ruin you life, and CAN kill you ?
Did I ever say that? I have made many specific claims, such as "LSD is not bad for your body" and "decriminalization of drugs results in fewer drug users." If you think one of these claims is wrong, why don't you tell me which one, and why? Right now I'm getting the vibe you're just instinctively opposing anything I say, rather than objectively considering and researching the facts I bring up.
Please give me the courtesy of seriously considering my arguments. I believe what I'm saying; I've thought a lot about this, and I'm only trying to communicate what I think are important truths. As I might have mentioned before, I'm in pharmacy school, so theoretically I know a good amount about pharmacology.
And please do not give me the rubbish that not all drugs can do this or cars can kill, you know what drugs I am talking about and you know that your comparison of car deaths to drug deaths are daft.
No, I don't know what drugs you are talking about. You haven't given me any specifics. I don't know that my comparison to cars is daft, either; you haven't explained why that should be so. I'm only using that example to explain that condemning an activity if it has caused one death, but millions of people have engaged in said activity, is completely unfair. If you can agree that a 1/1,000,000 risk is not unacceptably high, then we don't actually disagree here. If you think a 1/1,000,000 risk is too high, then that's your prerogative.
I talk in facts when I say drugs can ruin your life and can kill you, and when I say that starting on drugs like pot can lead to addictions that take you down dark paths to crack and heroin, its true, you just need to read the stories of people where this has happened, because there are many of them.
I never disagreed that some drugs can be dangerous. The "gateway drug" theory, as I mentioned before - and provided a link about - has been heavily criticized. There is nothing about pot that makes one turn into a crazed crack addict. Taking crack puts one on the path to crack addiction, not taking a totally different drug. That's the same as saying that caffeine will turn you into a crack addict - because caffeine is much more addictive than cannabis!
Addictions depend on the person, some people are lucky not to become addicted to drugs while others are not so lucky. I for one do not want to find out if I am the latter and I do not want any kid or adult to find that out either, which is why it is important to give the full FACTS about drugs and so people can decide not to take that chance and decide to why stayed clear of them, and not just the fluffy "drugs are not all bad as long as you know what your doing" rhetoric that's coming from you.
Excuse me - what is fluffy about the facts, numbers, and sources I have posted? You're the one making wild claims and refusing to even attempt to refute what I have posted! You even agreed that not all drugs are bad for you: "I never said all drugs were bad either." So which is it?
I agree entirely that it's important for adults to be given facts about drugs, and that's why I'm posting facts. What, exactly, do you even disagree with? Let's have a clear discussion, instead of personal attacks and wild exaggeration. I'm willing to learn from you; are you willing to learn from me?
I meant to add to my previous post to zidangus: I also agree, and have said before, that many drugs can become psychologically addictive. That, to my mind, is a risk, but only a small one; shopping can be psychologically addictive, too. I think most are able to handle it, and if they aren't, let's give them help instead of locking them up.
More people drive cars than do drugs. That is the reason for more car accidents. Also car driving is neccessary to hold a job if you are not independently wealthy have public transport or working at home. Drugs are not essential.
1.) The number of car drivers and drug users are comparable. "According to the Federal Highway Administration there were an estimated 196 million licensed drivers in the United States in the year 2003." There are 130 million cannabis users alone. 2.) Car driving is essential in some places, so that's a good point. Extreme sports would be a better metaphor: many people die skiing, but would zidangus be so opposed to someone taking up skiing?
Vilhjalmr, I honestly cannot believe you are serious about some of the things you are saying. I can see that continuing to reply to your posts, would be a waste of time as you continue to use arguments such as car deaths, extreme sports, which are in my opinion ludicrous. And your claiming that you do not know what drugs I am talking about, well I suggest to study more especially if you want to pass your course in pharmacy. I just hope that no vulnerable person ever listens to your irresponsible rhetoric.
And I hope I have put the message across that drugs are not good, they do not solve your problems, they can lead to bigger problems, don't take a chance that can lead to so much suffering in your life, its not worth it.
Lastly for any other person who was in doubt about the fifth precept, it includes drugs, the kind Vilhjalmr says are fine such as lsd. It is not just fermented and intoxicating drinks that Vilhjalmr suggests, and this will be true no matter what irrelevant comparison Vilhjalmr wants to make.
we were talking LSD I am well aware that there aren't deaths from cannabis. Also just saying but theres not 130 mil daily cannabis user. I am one of those 130 but that was like 18 years ago.
PS I have a friend who I attended pharmacy school who is in jail for giving out scheduled drugs to her friends. Just a heads up.
Vilhjalmr, I honestly cannot believe you are serious about some of the things you are saying.
What things exactly? It wouldn't be a waste of time to reply to me if your replies actually contained any content! Instead, you tell me vague things like the above, then hide and avoid the issue when I ask you.
I can see that continuing to reply to your posts, would be a waste of time as you continue to use arguments such as car deaths, extreme sports, which are in my opinion ludicrous.
Zidangus, if you have a problem with any of my assertions, why not actually tell me why? I think I have demonstrated that I am rational and willing to learn, but you are, apparently, not willing to teach.
Are my sources incorrect? Are my numbers wrong? What, exactly, makes my arguments ludicrous? Maybe they are... but if so, why can't you tell me why they are ludicrous?
Maybe it is because you know you cannot refute any of my assertions? I didn't want to believe this, but your refusal to actually engage in debate makes me wonder.
And your claiming that you do not know what drugs I am talking about, well I suggest to study more especially if you want to pass your course in pharmacy.
You haven't mentioned any specific drugs except crack and heroin, neither of which I ever said was safe to use. Crack is extremely bad for your heart, and heroin is extremely addictive. I would never recommend either one.
Lastly for any other person who was in doubt about the fifth precept, it includes drugs, the kind Vilhjalmr says are fine such as lsd. It is not just fermented and intoxicating drinks that Vilhjalmr suggests, and this will be true no matter what irrelevant comparison Vilhjalmr wants to make.
That's a valid interpretation. I just happen to disagree. The actual Pali, according to Wikipedia and my book "Buddhist Meditation", contains no word for "drug", only words for fermented drinks. One may take from that what they will.
Maybe part of the fault is mine, since I have not provided a clear summary of my position.
I think me and zidangus probably disagree less than it seems, since he has already said that (a) not all drugs are bad and (b) that current drug laws are not optimal. These two assertions are basically all I'm saying.
Zidangus, please read the following, and see if we truly disagree. I request this as someone who wishes to learn and communicate, so I hope you grant me a final couple minutes of your time. If you still feel that I am irrational and unreachable after this, then that saddens me, but I will bow out and we can part as friends.
1.) Drugs vary widely in addictiveness and dangerousness. Some are almost always fine to use, such as green tea (caffeine) or Benadryl (allergy pill). Others are almost always risky to use, such as crack or meth.
2.) The current drug laws are designed to make harmful drugs illegal, possibly dangerous drugs prescription-only, and usually harmless drugs over-the-counter. However, these drug laws are not perfect, and some legal drugs are harmful while some illegal drugs are mostly safe.
3.) The current drug laws are also problematical because, as the situations in Portugal and the Czech Republic show, prohibition of illegal drugs actually increases use. Therefore, some drugs should be decriminalized. Moreover -
4.) It is morally wrong to imprison a drug user if they are not hurting anyone else. It might be unwise to use drugs, but it is not unethical. (If, for example, you have ever used a nice hot cup of green tea to help you relax, you have just used a drug for recreational purposes.) Instead of being imprisoned, drug users should be educated.
If someone disagrees with any of these four points, I would be glad to engage in discussion as to why.
Maybe part of the fault is mine, since I have not provided a clear summary of my position.
I think me and zidangus probably disagree less than it seems, since he has already said that (a) not all drugs are bad and (b) that current drug laws are not optimal. These two assertions are basically all I'm saying.
Zidangus, please read the following, and see if we truly disagree. I request this as someone who wishes to learn and communicate, so I hope you grant me a final couple minutes of your time. If you still feel that I am irrational and unreachable after this, then that saddens me, but I will bow out and we can part as friends.
1.) Drugs vary widely in addictiveness and dangerousness. Some are almost always fine to use, such as green tea (caffeine) or Benadryl (allergy pill). Others are almost always risky to use, such as crack or meth.
2.) The current drug laws are designed to make harmful drugs illegal, possibly dangerous drugs prescription-only, and usually harmless drugs over-the-counter. However, these drug laws are not perfect, and some legal drugs are harmful while some illegal drugs are mostly safe.
3.) The current drug laws are also problematical because, as the situations in Portugal and the Czech Republic show, prohibition of illegal drugs actually increases use. Therefore, some drugs should be decriminalized. Moreover -
4.) It is morally wrong to imprison a drug user if they are not hurting anyone else. It might be unwise to use drugs, but it is not unethical. (If, for example, you have ever used a nice hot cup of green tea to help you relax, you have just used a drug for recreational purposes.) Instead of being imprisoned, drug users should be educated.
If someone disagrees with any of these four points, I would be glad to engage in discussion as to why.
With metta ,
Vilhjalmr
Those points I agree with. So will you agree that, we should not encourage people to take drugs which make it hard to think clearly, effect a persons ability to make rational decisions, are addictive and have no real benefit.
Those points I agree with. So will you agree that, we should not encourage people to take drugs which make it hard to think clearly, effect a persons ability to make rational decisions, are addictive and have no real benefit.
With Metta
Agreed, mostly. My apologies if my earlier posts made it look like I disagreed with this, as I now realize they may have. I do think that "real benefit" is dependent upon the individual, but drugs which are harmful and addictive I do not support at all.
I suspect we may disagree on which drugs fall into which category, but I don't have a problem with that. To my mind, once we all are agreed that current drug laws are sub-optimal (to say the least!) and that drugs are not categorically bad, it simply becomes a matter of research and education to find out which ones may be safely used by adults.
It's when people have an instinctive horror of the very idea of drugs, probably born of D.A.R.E propaganda and the like in childhood, that I think we have a problem - because then that means people won't be able to look objectively at the facts, and we end up with draconian laws like those we have today.
Ok so we agree mostly, that's good enough for me. I'm sorry if I sounded a bit in your face with my posts as well, I guess the issue of drugs is something that can stir up emotions and result in a heated debate.
No. The Buddha did not use hallucinogenics. No. The Buddha did not give his disciples Hallucinogenics. What the Buddha did do, however, is give his disciples teachings that would lead to liberation of the mind. The experience of Nibbana can certainly be said to be similar to some hallucinogenic experiences, the only difference between hallucinogenics, and the teachings of the Buddha, is that the realizations gained from consuming hallucinogenic, are temporary, and fade away from your mind as the hallucinogenics leave your body, whereas the realizations gained from practicing the path of the Buddha are permanent, and lead to real, true, and tangible liberation of the mind. In short, I can say this to you: hallucinogenics do not lead to Nibbana. the eightfold path leads to Nibbana. Good luck. . .
Ok so we agree mostly, that's good enough for me. I'm sorry if I sounded a bit in your face with my posts as well, I guess the issue of drugs is something that can stir up emotions and result in a heated debate.
No worries. It can indeed; I'm pretty passionate about the subject, so I tend to get "in your face" myself.
Comments
With Metta
I do feel marijuana should be legal. But it should have some of the same things in place as smoking cigarettes. Taxes and pretty much only smoking at home. There should also be laws about possession in a car to discourage driving under the influence of marijuana and higher penalties for kids under 18 in a group in possession, suspension of license. The reason is that inexperienced users are particularly dangerous in a car. Please don't argue "I can drive stoned". I know its not the same as drunk and that old people drive worse sometimes. Anyhow.
Please give me the courtesy of seriously considering my arguments. I believe what I'm saying; I've thought a lot about this, and I'm only trying to communicate what I think are important truths. As I might have mentioned before, I'm in pharmacy school, so theoretically I know a good amount about pharmacology. No, I don't know what drugs you are talking about. You haven't given me any specifics. I don't know that my comparison to cars is daft, either; you haven't explained why that should be so. I'm only using that example to explain that condemning an activity if it has caused one death, but millions of people have engaged in said activity, is completely unfair. If you can agree that a 1/1,000,000 risk is not unacceptably high, then we don't actually disagree here. If you think a 1/1,000,000 risk is too high, then that's your prerogative. I never disagreed that some drugs can be dangerous. The "gateway drug" theory, as I mentioned before - and provided a link about - has been heavily criticized. There is nothing about pot that makes one turn into a crazed crack addict. Taking crack puts one on the path to crack addiction, not taking a totally different drug. That's the same as saying that caffeine will turn you into a crack addict - because caffeine is much more addictive than cannabis!
You say there are many cases where this has happened, and that may be so, but even one hundred anecdotal reports would not be convincing, because 130,708,503 people in the U.S. have tried cannabis (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1821697,00.html ). Only 604,000 people in the U.S. use crack... so clearly, cannabis is not leading people to crack addiction (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/coke/f/coke_faq03.htm ). Excuse me - what is fluffy about the facts, numbers, and sources I have posted? You're the one making wild claims and refusing to even attempt to refute what I have posted! You even agreed that not all drugs are bad for you: "I never said all drugs were bad either." So which is it?
I agree entirely that it's important for adults to be given facts about drugs, and that's why I'm posting facts. What, exactly, do you even disagree with? Let's have a clear discussion, instead of personal attacks and wild exaggeration. I'm willing to learn from you; are you willing to learn from me?
2.) Car driving is essential in some places, so that's a good point. Extreme sports would be a better metaphor: many people die skiing, but would zidangus be so opposed to someone taking up skiing?
I honestly cannot believe you are serious about some of the things you are saying. I can see that continuing to reply to your posts, would be a waste of time as you continue to use arguments such as car deaths, extreme sports, which are in my opinion ludicrous. And your claiming that you do not know what drugs I am talking about, well I suggest to study more especially if you want to pass your course in pharmacy.
I just hope that no vulnerable person ever listens to your irresponsible rhetoric.
And I hope I have put the message across that drugs are not good, they do not solve your problems, they can lead to bigger problems, don't take a chance that can lead to so much suffering in your life, its not worth it.
Lastly for any other person who was in doubt about the fifth precept, it includes drugs, the kind Vilhjalmr says are fine such as lsd. It is not just fermented and intoxicating drinks that Vilhjalmr suggests, and this will be true no matter what irrelevant comparison Vilhjalmr wants to make.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_36.html
With Metta
we were talking LSD
PS I have a friend who I attended pharmacy school who is in jail for giving out scheduled drugs to her friends. Just a heads up.
Are my sources incorrect? Are my numbers wrong? What, exactly, makes my arguments ludicrous? Maybe they are... but if so, why can't you tell me why they are ludicrous?
Maybe it is because you know you cannot refute any of my assertions? I didn't want to believe this, but your refusal to actually engage in debate makes me wonder. You haven't mentioned any specific drugs except crack and heroin, neither of which I ever said was safe to use. Crack is extremely bad for your heart, and heroin is extremely addictive. I would never recommend either one. That's a valid interpretation. I just happen to disagree. The actual Pali, according to Wikipedia and my book "Buddhist Meditation", contains no word for "drug", only words for fermented drinks. One may take from that what they will.
I think me and zidangus probably disagree less than it seems, since he has already said that (a) not all drugs are bad and (b) that current drug laws are not optimal. These two assertions are basically all I'm saying.
Zidangus, please read the following, and see if we truly disagree. I request this as someone who wishes to learn and communicate, so I hope you grant me a final couple minutes of your time. If you still feel that I am irrational and unreachable after this, then that saddens me, but I will bow out and we can part as friends.
1.) Drugs vary widely in addictiveness and dangerousness. Some are almost always fine to use, such as green tea (caffeine) or Benadryl (allergy pill). Others are almost always risky to use, such as crack or meth.
2.) The current drug laws are designed to make harmful drugs illegal, possibly dangerous drugs prescription-only, and usually harmless drugs over-the-counter. However, these drug laws are not perfect, and some legal drugs are harmful while some illegal drugs are mostly safe.
3.) The current drug laws are also problematical because, as the situations in Portugal and the Czech Republic show, prohibition of illegal drugs actually increases use. Therefore, some drugs should be decriminalized. Moreover -
4.) It is morally wrong to imprison a drug user if they are not hurting anyone else. It might be unwise to use drugs, but it is not unethical. (If, for example, you have ever used a nice hot cup of green tea to help you relax, you have just used a drug for recreational purposes.) Instead of being imprisoned, drug users should be educated.
If someone disagrees with any of these four points, I would be glad to engage in discussion as to why.
With metta
Vilhjalmr
So will you agree that, we should not encourage people to take drugs which make it hard to think clearly, effect a persons ability to make rational decisions, are addictive and have no real benefit.
With Metta
I suspect we may disagree on which drugs fall into which category, but I don't have a problem with that. To my mind, once we all are agreed that current drug laws are sub-optimal (to say the least!) and that drugs are not categorically bad, it simply becomes a matter of research and education to find out which ones may be safely used by adults.
It's when people have an instinctive horror of the very idea of drugs, probably born of D.A.R.E propaganda and the like in childhood, that I think we have a problem - because then that means people won't be able to look objectively at the facts, and we end up with draconian laws like those we have today.
With Metta