I once lolled with my old supervisor about being able to get an article published about how nuclear war is inherently sexist (he thought it was doable, but advised against doing it before having a career to ruin), and today I saw this this using similar arguments to what I proposed.
The best thing I read in my degree was something by a feminist saying that nuclear war was sexist because missiles are shaped like a penis and testing sites are all given girls' names (among other points made). I wish I could remember the author and/or title.
"recreational use" varies from person to person. I know for a fact that my brother thinks smoking a bowl a day isn't that bad.
I've only gone and found it.
http://plaza.ufl.edu/hardman/LanguageAndGender/Cohn.pdf
I know some people for whom it's taken over their life and not in a very pleasant way. I know far more people, though, for whom it's just a fun thing to be done from time to time (including myself).
Nuclear phallacies.
Since when did a 'simple stoner' ever get any serious punishment lately?Originally Posted by leedsrevolution
I just read that whole thing. I'm normally first on the bandwagon to defend academics, but that's a bit special.
There's some incredibly choice quotes in there.
By the time they are 'addicts', no. People might think twice about even touching the stuff to begin with if there was a properly enforced punishment.
I remember going to the International Relations seminar we were meant to have read it for, expecting much lolling only to find an earnest discussion of how in many ways she hadn't gone far enough. God bless you, SOAS.I just read that whole thing. I'm normally first on the bandwagon to defend academics, but that's a bit special.
There's some incredibly choice quotes in there.
I don't think so. Particularly when young, when most people who have ever done drugs try a drug/drugs for the first time.
It's time to revisit it. Let people be adults and tax the stuff they're happy to decriminalise. At least the stuff on the streets would be closer to what the person is thinking they're buying rather than some crazy cut mix.
I would have thought the government making money off of people's misery went against all your bleeding heart principles?
And to add to this, prescribing poison to people would surely go against the Hippocratic oath?
That is at least anchored to something real and interesting. The real gold is found in literature about the subject itself, such as this from Social Memory (1988) by James Fentress and Chris Wickham:
It is on this level (contesting the manipulation of 'national memory' by 'elites') that the role of schoolteaching and the media is most important. So, indeed, is that of professional historians, whose function, whether conscious or unconscious, is, more often than they realise, less to analyse the 'pastness' of the past than to give an objective veneer to the preoccupation and self-legitimizations of national bourgeoisies.
I read that about three months into the programme, and I think it's a good job I'm naturally inclined to lol at shite.
All research and successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased, and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.
Well if I was busted smoking a spliff I would lose by job, which would mean my career is ruined. When I say lives ruined I wasn't meaning thrown in the prison showers with bubba.
There are different threads to this clearly - the way we control the use of the likes of heroin is not the same conversation as that we ought to have about marijuana or Ecstacy. Regarding heroin - it's quite clear, treatment and less punitive measures are key and more than anything, rehabilitation needs to bring people in from the fringes of society and give them some purpose to be effective. The controlled use of marijuana is one I'd probably support, with licencing similar to alcohol. I'd also ban tobacco wholesale as well mind you - what the fuck is the point of the stuff and how the hell was I able to legally buy them and continue a damaging and pointless endeavour in the 21st century? Anyway...
Ecstacy is an interesting one. It's well established now that it's a heck a lot safer than alcohol. Again, controlled use would probably work but it's difficult to reference with E, being as there's no Netherlands of the artificial drug world.
Chemotherapy?
Are you familiar with chemotherapy?
EDIT: Phonics is on it. Disregard. There's actually a number of medications which cause harm in addition to their curative properties, although chemo is definitely the most famous.
It's not "slightly higher", and I'm not aware of significant opiate production in Malaysia.
Recreational or "party" drugs are obviously more commonly used in wealthier societies, because surprisingly people in Afghanistan aren't looking for something to enhance the great time they're already having.
Most people who are at the point of taking heroin aren't really thinking about long term consequences any more.
Busted by who? You don't get thrown in jail for 'smoking a spliff'. You get, at most, a 'cannabis warning'. Also known as nothing at all.
Do I need to point out why they are not the same?
Chemotherapy which gives those with a terminal illness longer life if they want it and can even send cancer into remission? Yes, I'm aware of it. I wasn't surprised Phonics brought it up but I might have expected you wouldn't stoop to such silly levels.
It is slightly higher when compared with the volume of all other drug categories in other countries are compared to them.
And surprisingly opiates are much more common in countries where they grow.....
So make cannabis more punishable. And every other gateway drug.
Yes, because cannabis also has medicinal effects.
So we are banning alcohol now?
I'm pretty sure it doesn't send life threatening diseases into remission. Painkillers take away pain - cannabis may do as well, but it also demotivates people and can lead to mental illness.
This always gets brought up. Alcohol is bad (can be good in moderation, though), so why do you want something else that's bad? What kind of argument is that?
So can Codeine, Steroids and a hundred of the other Prescription Painkillers you see advertised on U.S. Television.
Because I think Cannabis use is better in moderation than Alcohol (The police aren't going to have to break up a punch-up inside a place selling spacebrownies listening to Bob Dylan)
Capitalism leads to mental illness too. Ban it!
Because consistency.
If both are used in moderation then alcohol is clearly better.
I acknowledged that that wasn't surpising. And yes, drugs created artificially such as ecstasy are more common in wealthier societies where lab equipment and materials are more readily available. But there is a prevalence of opiate use (the most harmful of commonly used drugs) in countries with extremely harsh penalties for it, in direct contradiction of your view to the contrary (remember that you said Iran was an outlier?).
"Gateway drug" is another load of nonsense from the "it's just common sense mate" field. There's no chain of decadence that sees somebody go from casual smoking to injecting heroin, it's far more complex than that.
Fuck consistency. If the alcohol and cigarettes were to come out right now, knowing what we do, they would not be legal.
Based on what?
The countries where it is prevalent is where it grows or where it passes through. Which happens to be Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.
What do you base that on? How many people go straight to hard drugs? You have to start somewhere."Gateway drug" is another load of nonsense from the "it's just common sense mate" field. There's no chain of decadence that sees somebody go from casual smoking to injecting heroin, it's far more complex than that.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/7-health...alcohol-247552
My first link on Google list has 23 so that's Game, Set and Match.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/health...14-4?r=US&IR=T
Fucking hell.
It isn't a logical progression. Most people who end up taking heroin probably have tried other drugs, but it's not because they took the first drug that they end up taking the heroin. There's also little logic in the claim that banning marijuana would do anything. Heroin is already banned and punished with often severe consequences - people know the risks involved, and it clearly isn't putting them off, because most people taking heroin are doing so from a point of desperation and/or self-destruction.
If Isis were all to drop at the same time, the world would be a safer place.
And we would be the worse for it. This sudden appetite for Sharia Law from you is a bit puzzling.
I don't think you can deny the role of gateway drugs, @Toby. When (some) people have experienced one kind of high, they go looking for others.
"One kind of high" could be skydiving, or rollercoasters, or sex or video games or fast food. The reasons people decide to do hard drugs are far more complex than a progression from "softer" stuff, and it is simplistic nonsense to speak about "gateway drugs" as if cannabis is any more of a risk factor than a heap of others.
Even if we do accept "gateway drugs" are a thing, making cannabis illegal just means people have to go to criminals for their supply, and are more likely to be exposed to harder drugs and other seedy affairs in the process.
Why not dispute what it says?Fucking hell.
The Hippocratic oath which UK doctors don't take and which is widely considered obsolete in many aspects.
There is never unlimited freedom. Aren't you the clown who thins even the most dangerous drugs should be legal? I think Hitchens nails it when he says it's all down to selfishness. The 'it only harms me' line is completely wrong.
Regardless which side you're on, this open dialogue between Hitchens and Jonathan Hari is a great read:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....-on-drugs.html
Maybe we should re-instate it and go back to medicine via common sense?
Reply With Quote
