BTW Rick...that guy in your picture...Miles Davis...did heroin and managed to make one hell of a lot of great music both while he was doing it and after he quit.
did lots and lots of drugs.
and was one of the greatest musicians of the last century.
I doubt that he would have made all those great records if he had been in prison.
No, I mean, does the act of ingesting ANY substance violate the rights of anyone? The actual act of picking it up, putting it in your mouth, and swallowing? Or snorting or smoking or injecting? Whose rights do those specific acts violate, what rights, and how?
Heroin mythologists, please read the following article:
H The surprising truth about heroin and addiction.
 Â
In 1992 The New York Times carried a front-page story about a successful businessman who happened to be a regular heroin user. It began: "He is an executive in a company in New York, lives in a condo on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, drives an expensive car, plays tennis in the Hamptons and vacations with his wife in Europe and the Caribbean. But unknown to office colleagues, friends, and most of his family, the man is also a longtime heroin user. He says he finds heroin relaxing and pleasurable and has seen no reason to stop using it until the woman he recently married insisted that he do so. ‘The drug is an enhancement of my life,’ he said. ‘I see it as similar to a guy coming home and having a drink of alcohol. Only alcohol has never done it for me.’"
The Times noted that "nearly everything about the 44-year-old executive...seems to fly in the face of widely held perceptions about heroin users." The reporter who wrote the story and his editors seemed uncomfortable with contradicting official anti-drug propaganda, which depicts heroin use as incompatible with a satisfying, productive life. The headline read, "Executive’s Secret Struggle With Heroin’s Powerful Grip," which sounds more like a cautionary tale than a success story. And the Times hastened to add that heroin users "are flirting with disaster." It conceded that "heroin does not damage the organs as, for instance, heavy alcohol use does." But it cited the risk of arrest, overdose, AIDS, and hepatitis -- without noting that all of these risks are created or exacerbated by prohibition.
The general thrust of the piece was: Here is a privileged man who is tempting fate by messing around with a very dangerous drug. He may have escaped disaster so far, but unless he quits he will probably end up dead or in prison.
That is not the way the businessman saw his situation.
Did you know you're like a drug bigot or something?
I know both a former crack addict and a former heroin junkie. Both are now married, and work very hard. One has a newborn child, and runs his own (super-busy) business. The other has since re-taken on the role of raising his teenage daughter, along with his wife (who just completed college).
You can think they're the exceptions to the rule, or that it'll catch up with them in 15 years or whatever, but you'd just be playing head-games with yourself -- not much more constructive than beating your head against the desk.
Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character created by a writer a long long time ago....
sorry... Joseph Bell...or Arthur Conan Doyle...take your pick
if you would like I can provide a LOT of real, flesh and blood, more contemporary examples of drug users whom you may question the mental capabilities of.
you can start with Robert Louis Stevenson or Stephan King who claims it saved him from alcoholism and an early grave: "without coke I'd have gone on drinking until about the age of 55 and it would have been a couple of lines in the New York Times: 'Writer Stephen King dies of stroke.'
BTW Rick...that guy in your picture...Miles Davis...did heroin and managed to make one hell of a lot of great music both while he was doing it and after he quit.
did lots and lots of drugs.
and was one of the greatest musicians of the last century.
I doubt that he would have made all those great records if he had been in prison.
Rick,
You got a clip man ?
I'm not going to work today, there's an I dream of Jeannie marathon on TBS.
These are actually human beings we're talking about here. Are they just characters in a book to you?
They were real life. I just happend to not think much of them.
Oh you're gonna get it now boy.
Come on.
Kennedy was a Man-Ho.
Ghandi was into young girls.
Freud was fixated on his weiner and his bung hole.
If I wanted to treat you as a two-dimensional character, I'd say you were fixated on sex.
Gays seem to be quite a preoccupation with you.
See how easy that is?
Tell us about your childhood JT, did you get along with your Father ?
Tell me about your Mother................................
Gays seem to be quite a preoccupation with you.
They do?
What makes you say that?
Tell us about your childhood JT, did you get along with your Father?
It all started...
"What makes you say that? "
Do I detect a defensive tone?
I can see a pattern forming....
Just wondering, sweet cheeks.
Come on sweetie, talk to me.
Where'd you go?
You're juicy fruit is waiting.
Seems like Freud and fold have the same fixations.
Well if the biggest names in hip-hop agree, then it's gotta be a good idea ;) Fat Joe and P. Diddy for prez. in 2004 !
Does the act of ingesting a substance violate the rights of anyone?
It wasn't so much as an effective defense as it was an ineffective prosecution for Orenthal.
No, I mean, does the act of ingesting ANY substance violate the rights of anyone? The actual act of picking it up, putting it in your mouth, and swallowing? Or snorting or smoking or injecting? Whose rights do those specific acts violate, what rights, and how?
H
Heroin mythologists, please read the following article:
 Â
In 1992 The New York Times carried a front-page story about a successful businessman who happened to be a regular heroin user. It began: "He is an executive in a company in New York, lives in a condo on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, drives an expensive car, plays tennis in the Hamptons and vacations with his wife in Europe and the Caribbean. But unknown to office colleagues, friends, and most of his family, the man is also a longtime heroin user. He says he finds heroin relaxing and pleasurable and has seen no reason to stop using it until the woman he recently married insisted that he do so. ‘The drug is an enhancement of my life,’ he said. ‘I see it as similar to a guy coming home and having a drink of alcohol. Only alcohol has never done it for me.’"
The Times noted that "nearly everything about the 44-year-old executive...seems to fly in the face of widely held perceptions about heroin users." The reporter who wrote the story and his editors seemed uncomfortable with contradicting official anti-drug propaganda, which depicts heroin use as incompatible with a satisfying, productive life. The headline read, "Executive’s Secret Struggle With Heroin’s Powerful Grip," which sounds more like a cautionary tale than a success story. And the Times hastened to add that heroin users "are flirting with disaster." It conceded that "heroin does not damage the organs as, for instance, heavy alcohol use does." But it cited the risk of arrest, overdose, AIDS, and hepatitis -- without noting that all of these risks are created or exacerbated by prohibition.
The general thrust of the piece was: Here is a privileged man who is tempting fate by messing around with a very dangerous drug. He may have escaped disaster so far, but unless he quits he will probably end up dead or in prison.
That is not the way the businessman saw his situation.
so, some say it's illegal because it creates problems while others point out that the majority of the problems are due to it's being illegal.
That is not the way the businessman saw his situation.
He's the exception to the rule. So far anyway. I'l like to check back in with him in 15 years.
Right, when he'll suddenly be gripped by the inevitable addiction that he somehow avoided for years while using.
I wager he won't be alive in 15 years.
"Assuming that the rule = heroin users are hopeless junkie losers."
Not so long ago, heroin was thought of as chic in some circles. Clinton went on a war against heroin chicin the fashion industry.
Did that change? I'm behind the times on a lot of things.
for that matter, you may not be alive to check up on him 15 years from now.
Yeah, but I won't die from heroin use.
he may not either
what will you die from?
I'll die from slamming my head on my desk.
Does it matter if the heroin user is dead in 15 years? IF heroin kills him, it will be his choice. It's nobody else's business.
and this is better than drugs?
wonders how many times a doctor has told a patient that if they keep eating red meat, they will be dead in fifteen years
and this is better than drugs?
LOL!
You're probably right about red meat.
I'm not the one trying to justify the eating of red meat.
We gotta eat sompthin...
Try heroin.
I heard it's yummy.
:-)
not "justify"..."outlaw"
Heroin would hardly be able to sustain life for very long.
It makes no sense to use it as a food source.
:)
not "justify"..."outlaw"
Someone wishes to outlaw the consumption of red meat?
Entropy happens....
;)
no...someone is arguing that heroin should remain outlawed because it may kill someone after 15 years of consuming it
Aaaah, I see.
I always thought that the outlawing of personal choice is a form of removal of freedom ergo enslavement.
Personal choice is reserved for those mentally capable.
I question the mental capablities of crack addicts.
I'm just weird that way.
Who decides who is mentally capable?
The psychology profession.
Who decides if they (the psychology profession et al.) are mentally capable?
Isn't capability a subjective measurement?
Or have I been talking to Spock too much?
;)
Did you read that whole article or not?
Did you know you're like a drug bigot or something?
I know both a former crack addict and a former heroin junkie. Both are now married, and work very hard. One has a newborn child, and runs his own (super-busy) business. The other has since re-taken on the role of raising his teenage daughter, along with his wife (who just completed college).
You can think they're the exceptions to the rule, or that it'll catch up with them in 15 years or whatever, but you'd just be playing head-games with yourself -- not much more constructive than beating your head against the desk.
crack...of course...came about only because of the laws against cocaine.
do you also question the mental capabilities of...say...Sigmund Freud and Sherlock Holmes?
do you also question the mental capabilities of...say...Sigmund Freud and Sherlock Holmes?
Aaaah Crabgrass sweety.....
Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character created by a writer a long long time ago.......
I doubt that his cocaine habit is a valid point for this arguement.....
sorry... Joseph Bell...or Arthur Conan Doyle...take your pick
if you would like I can provide a LOT of real, flesh and blood, more contemporary examples of drug users whom you may question the mental capabilities of.
you can start with Robert Louis Stevenson or Stephan King who claims it saved him from alcoholism and an early grave: "without coke I'd have gone on drinking until about the age of 55 and it would have been a couple of lines in the New York Times: 'Writer Stephen King dies of stroke.'
question their mental capabilites?
just a few dumb guys?
I question no one's mental capabilities.
Everyone and everything is perfect just the way it/they are.
Even the ones doing drugs/alcohol/pickyoursubstance.
not you...THX is though...
and even then, the drug laws make no distinction for mental capability.
I mean, you can't tell the judge "hey, I'm a smart fellow, let me go now" and expect it to carry any legal weight, can you?
the drug laws make no distinction for mental capability.
No one in their right mind would do crack or heroin.
Those people need to be protected from themselves.