Began here.
These men both surprised me with their brusque and totally accurate opinions about the elephant in the room; Drugs. It's the elephant in the room, because drugs have been used by people since they were the woolly mammoth in the room. Yet since at least the middle ages there have been efforts to ban some or all drugs. Which begs the question, what would the world be like if drugs were legalized?
Firstly, people would still abuse drugs. People would still rob each other for drugs or drug money, badly produced drugs would still kill people. One of the worst arguments that exists for drug legalization(usually given by cannabis-advocates) is that once you take the criminal or forbidden element out of the drug culture, all of criminality and abuse would disappear. Criminality and abuse are part of humanity with or without drugs; the difference after legalization being that only the criminals and abusers would be punished, not the casual user.
And for that casual user, there would be a period shortly after legalization in which some would expand their horizons. I use my favorite drug every day because it's the best one I've tried that I have easy access to. But on the few occasions I've been able to try a drug that is illegal for me, I think "I would use this alot more, if I could get it". That's why I think you'd see a shift in what are the most commonly and least commonly used drugs; and I think for the better.
Legalization means there could and would be locally produced drugs. With the advent of legalization, companies could market and distribute their own(as they currently do with prescription drugs, tobacco and alcohol). Regardless, once you allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to produce his own drugs, He will. Because Tom's good with horticulture, Dick's good with chemistry and Harry wants to make some money. Do-It-Yourself is already part of drug culture, and it would only bloom and blossom after legalization for obvious reason.
Writers, usually being pretty on-the-ball historically, have come out as advocates of sobriety, legal drugs, quasi-legal and illegal drugs; or at the very least expressed which of these things have worked for them. Though many other entertainers and public figures might not initially want to air out their dirty laundry in public, over time, they would. In addition, unless you think drug use is completely removed from the creative process(a pretty novel idea), It can be assumed that some no-names or no-creates will discover their muse drug(s) once they have easier access to it. I personally would welcome whatever happened in this realm, just for curiosities sake.
...to be continued.
Legalize drugs, part 1
"I'm a pill popper. How you feel is just chemistry. I'm addicted to weed, but I pop different kinds of pills depending on what I have to do"
-some dude I work with
This man's assertion that "how you feel is just chemistry" is totally correct. You can get more alien feelings by running a marathon or depriving yourself of sleep than you can by using most drugs. So why the bias against something that more directly alters feelings? All drugs do is provide a direct route to however you would like to feel without all the lifestyle changes and hemming and hawing. In addition, this mans admission of "I'm a pill-popper" is like nothing I'd heard before. Who admits to being a pill-popper? Someone who recognizes the physical reality of drugs and holds no preconceptions about form. Currently, the preconceptions are:
Drugs you can drink: something that's socially acceptable to use occasionally, as a celebration or another extreme.
Drugs you can smoke: Something you will have to use every day for maintenance and is addicting, though can be used functionally.
Drugs you shoot: you're a junkie and useless.
Drugs in pill form: Should only be taken when taken Ill or possessing tangible personality disorders. Taking for fun is a "slippery slope".
Though the absorption is different for these different methods, they're all drugs, and they all do the same thing- whatever the user is desiring.
"He got fucked up, there was nothing wrong with him. This is america and you should be able to get as fucked up as you want. We should legalize everything. It would cause total chaos, but we should still do it".
-some dude I work with.
This man presents an interesting point- even if you agree drugs are destructive, that doesn't by extension mean they should be illegal. If you consider consequences in regard to ethical decisions you are engaging in realpolitik- which is for twelve-steppers and sadists, exclusively. It's not about 'what would happen' if we did something, but 'what is right'.
The speaker expresses too a seemingly perverted but actually legit patriotism in his statement; The united states is interested in freedom primarily. So as long as it doesn't interfere with basic human rights and dignity, everything ought to be allowed. Because absolutely all drugs can be used responsibly(there is still no drug that makes you attack and harm people as a certainty), they ought to be legal.
As far as the "caus[ing] total chaos"; Not only should that not matter to an american who is more interested in liberty than safety, it's a temporary condition. Drugs are not poison necessarily, and not all drugs are equal. If they've been marketed and used for a long while, they are legitimate. It's like capitalism; competition. There's a reason the most common drugs in the world are caffeine, alcohol and nicotine, and why no one is taking low doses of arsenic to get fucked up. If and when all drugs are legalized, the most useful and effective drugs would be used by more people and the least useful and least effective drugs would be used by fewer people.
It would/will be a slow process of selection.
-some dude I work with
This man's assertion that "how you feel is just chemistry" is totally correct. You can get more alien feelings by running a marathon or depriving yourself of sleep than you can by using most drugs. So why the bias against something that more directly alters feelings? All drugs do is provide a direct route to however you would like to feel without all the lifestyle changes and hemming and hawing. In addition, this mans admission of "I'm a pill-popper" is like nothing I'd heard before. Who admits to being a pill-popper? Someone who recognizes the physical reality of drugs and holds no preconceptions about form. Currently, the preconceptions are:
Drugs you can drink: something that's socially acceptable to use occasionally, as a celebration or another extreme.
Drugs you can smoke: Something you will have to use every day for maintenance and is addicting, though can be used functionally.
Drugs you shoot: you're a junkie and useless.
Drugs in pill form: Should only be taken when taken Ill or possessing tangible personality disorders. Taking for fun is a "slippery slope".
Though the absorption is different for these different methods, they're all drugs, and they all do the same thing- whatever the user is desiring.
"He got fucked up, there was nothing wrong with him. This is america and you should be able to get as fucked up as you want. We should legalize everything. It would cause total chaos, but we should still do it".
-some dude I work with.
This man presents an interesting point- even if you agree drugs are destructive, that doesn't by extension mean they should be illegal. If you consider consequences in regard to ethical decisions you are engaging in realpolitik- which is for twelve-steppers and sadists, exclusively. It's not about 'what would happen' if we did something, but 'what is right'.
The speaker expresses too a seemingly perverted but actually legit patriotism in his statement; The united states is interested in freedom primarily. So as long as it doesn't interfere with basic human rights and dignity, everything ought to be allowed. Because absolutely all drugs can be used responsibly(there is still no drug that makes you attack and harm people as a certainty), they ought to be legal.
As far as the "caus[ing] total chaos"; Not only should that not matter to an american who is more interested in liberty than safety, it's a temporary condition. Drugs are not poison necessarily, and not all drugs are equal. If they've been marketed and used for a long while, they are legitimate. It's like capitalism; competition. There's a reason the most common drugs in the world are caffeine, alcohol and nicotine, and why no one is taking low doses of arsenic to get fucked up. If and when all drugs are legalized, the most useful and effective drugs would be used by more people and the least useful and least effective drugs would be used by fewer people.
It would/will be a slow process of selection.
when positive thinking goes wrong
1- Self esteem
The "self esteem movement" started in the late 70's. Born out of assumptions and the likely self-esteem of those who propagated it; it's main tenet is that a positive view of oneself is an important thing to have. My objection to this is simple- If you tell me that you feel good about yourself, it begs the question "Why do you feel good about yourself?". And if you have a good reason, then you ought to just find satisfaction in that reason. Self-esteem is, however, a more limited concept. It need not involve reason at all- just delusion.
What the critics say: "self-esteem: an erroneous appeasement." -Ambrose Bierce.
What I say: Self-awareness is the new self esteem.
2- Optimism
Optimism can be considered seeing the best in things. In people, in circumstance, in events. The problem is, any technical knowledge or intellectualizing immediately murders optimism. In answering the classic question "Is the glass half empty or half full?", more varied answers could be:
-Both.
-It's half full, but could be twice that full.
-It's half empty, but looks tasty!
-Half empty or half full or what? If you mean of fluid, Then I'd have to measure- it's hard to tell with the naked eye. It's very unlikely that it's a half[empty or full] anyhow, it's probably a little off from that mark, depending of course on how you prepared the demonstration.
-I can't be sure, but don't leave it unattended. That's how date rape happens.
-Is there booze in there?
Not to totally mock the idea; these varied answers can also be applied to personal life choices and world events. Optimism is just too simple to be useful.
3- Narcissism
The simplest incarnation is "thinking you're better or more unique than others". I, like all great men, have felt that way about myself before. My beef with narcissism is when that state of mind fails to lead to anything of value; which is true of most narcissists. Feeling that you are better than others, if it leads to you achieving more than others, is righteous. Feeling that you are better than others, if it leads to laying in the cut reminding yourself that you are better than others, is lame.
In the more advanced stages, magical thinking enters the picture to fill in the obvious gaps in logic. When magical thinking enters the picture, you should leave it.
...
Despite all this, I think positively. But in a more realistic and subtle way. I don't pretend that I'm great, my life is great, or that I'm destined for greatness; only by the merit of my existence. Rather, I think positively because it's more likely to get favorable results than thinking negatively.
It's chiefly the most pragmatic approach, and secondarily, a more pleasant way to live.
The "self esteem movement" started in the late 70's. Born out of assumptions and the likely self-esteem of those who propagated it; it's main tenet is that a positive view of oneself is an important thing to have. My objection to this is simple- If you tell me that you feel good about yourself, it begs the question "Why do you feel good about yourself?". And if you have a good reason, then you ought to just find satisfaction in that reason. Self-esteem is, however, a more limited concept. It need not involve reason at all- just delusion.
What the critics say: "self-esteem: an erroneous appeasement." -Ambrose Bierce.
What I say: Self-awareness is the new self esteem.
2- Optimism
Optimism can be considered seeing the best in things. In people, in circumstance, in events. The problem is, any technical knowledge or intellectualizing immediately murders optimism. In answering the classic question "Is the glass half empty or half full?", more varied answers could be:
-Both.
-It's half full, but could be twice that full.
-It's half empty, but looks tasty!
-Half empty or half full or what? If you mean of fluid, Then I'd have to measure- it's hard to tell with the naked eye. It's very unlikely that it's a half[empty or full] anyhow, it's probably a little off from that mark, depending of course on how you prepared the demonstration.
-I can't be sure, but don't leave it unattended. That's how date rape happens.
-Is there booze in there?
Not to totally mock the idea; these varied answers can also be applied to personal life choices and world events. Optimism is just too simple to be useful.
3- Narcissism
The simplest incarnation is "thinking you're better or more unique than others". I, like all great men, have felt that way about myself before. My beef with narcissism is when that state of mind fails to lead to anything of value; which is true of most narcissists. Feeling that you are better than others, if it leads to you achieving more than others, is righteous. Feeling that you are better than others, if it leads to laying in the cut reminding yourself that you are better than others, is lame.
In the more advanced stages, magical thinking enters the picture to fill in the obvious gaps in logic. When magical thinking enters the picture, you should leave it.
...
Despite all this, I think positively. But in a more realistic and subtle way. I don't pretend that I'm great, my life is great, or that I'm destined for greatness; only by the merit of my existence. Rather, I think positively because it's more likely to get favorable results than thinking negatively.
It's chiefly the most pragmatic approach, and secondarily, a more pleasant way to live.
Just like riding a bike
Your body and brain alike are a machine, and they have each been redesigned and redeveloped over 5,300 generations to build the best machine for optimal performance right now, if you're alive to read this.
Everyone is able to excel at something. This is not [only] a feel good inspirational message, it is a fact of evolution and circumstance. If an animal fails in enough capacities, it won't survive.
You are given certain abilities by default. Others you learn out of need or curiosity. Most remarkably, you don't forget. No matter the depth or non-intensity of inactivity or laziness since using a skill, you can do it again as if perfect records have been kept.
Fucking, Fighting, Writing, Caring, Thinking, any activity at all... If you've learned it, you'll always know how to do it, just like riding a bike.
Everyone is able to excel at something. This is not [only] a feel good inspirational message, it is a fact of evolution and circumstance. If an animal fails in enough capacities, it won't survive.
You are given certain abilities by default. Others you learn out of need or curiosity. Most remarkably, you don't forget. No matter the depth or non-intensity of inactivity or laziness since using a skill, you can do it again as if perfect records have been kept.
Fucking, Fighting, Writing, Caring, Thinking, any activity at all... If you've learned it, you'll always know how to do it, just like riding a bike.
Nature is a big mean son of a bitch
Something that irritates me every snow and storm season is the criticism of whatever methods are in place to help temper blizzards and hurricanes. These things are legally considered "acts of god". Even the atheists wouldn't bother taking "god" out of that one. It's a thing no one has real control over. It would be like holding Haitian emergency services accountable because they didn't do enough to stop the tectonic plates from shifting in the earthquake.
If the roads aren't plowed enough for you to enjoy a "few beers" at the bar like usual, then you have to drink at home. If the hurricane has flooded your home, then you have no home. During and after extreme weather events, things can't just go on like they always did. And in cases of true tragedy, there's no one to blame but god if you believe in him.
All we can do is brace ourselves before the storm, and try to fix shit afterward. This applies to more than just weather. Before cold and flu season, you can take vitamins, get immunized if possible, whatever. But if you get sick you get sick. There's a storm, or there isn't. Your sinuses, like the roadways, can't be clear every moment. And just like you could unexpectedly careen off the highway and die on a slippery road, you could just get iced by the common cold one year.
Nature should bring humility to you. Rather, it should humiliate you. Anyone whose upset that the snow prevents them from going where they'd like to has never actually considered the possibility of premature death from sickness or weather. A moment, while in the midst of extreme weather or sickness, it occurs to them "nature doesn't give a flying fuck about me!". We're all lucky the casualties aren't higher than they are. IF you're so anxious to get to your job at kinkos, plow the roads yourself.
If the roads aren't plowed enough for you to enjoy a "few beers" at the bar like usual, then you have to drink at home. If the hurricane has flooded your home, then you have no home. During and after extreme weather events, things can't just go on like they always did. And in cases of true tragedy, there's no one to blame but god if you believe in him.
All we can do is brace ourselves before the storm, and try to fix shit afterward. This applies to more than just weather. Before cold and flu season, you can take vitamins, get immunized if possible, whatever. But if you get sick you get sick. There's a storm, or there isn't. Your sinuses, like the roadways, can't be clear every moment. And just like you could unexpectedly careen off the highway and die on a slippery road, you could just get iced by the common cold one year.
Nature should bring humility to you. Rather, it should humiliate you. Anyone whose upset that the snow prevents them from going where they'd like to has never actually considered the possibility of premature death from sickness or weather. A moment, while in the midst of extreme weather or sickness, it occurs to them "nature doesn't give a flying fuck about me!". We're all lucky the casualties aren't higher than they are. IF you're so anxious to get to your job at kinkos, plow the roads yourself.
Chuck D for president.
Earlier today, I posted a song to my facebook. It was "Harder than you think" by Public Enemy. A friend of mine; an educated american man with no shortage of political opinion, posted in response "Chuck D for president".
At first glance, you might think that this is the run-of-the-mill "-insert some silly thing- for president" proclamation thats only meant to express vague dissatisfaction and a sense of humor. That might be the case, if it wasn't totally possible.
My dad used to sometimes refer to Frank Zappa's consideration of running for presidency in order to reinforce that fact. It's important to remember. The president doesn't have to have been a politician previously. That's why many entertainers, already being in the public eye, seized that opportunity, like this guy, this guy, and this guy.
Which is what irritates me about those who celebrate Barack Obamas presidency as a major shift in american politics. This guy isn't a revolutionary. He's He's not even a free thinker, compared to Frank Zappa or Chuck D. He's rather drab; more similar to this guy, or especially this guy. Whatever the implications of that are, it's certainly not that a new era of change and hope has commenced.
Though americans are slowly realizing that's the case, they haven't taken it to it's logical conclusion: that a politician is a politician no matter how he looks or how charismatic he may be, and further; we don't have to elect a politician. Imagine how things would be if Chuck D were elected president instead of Barrack Obama. Would our circumstances be worse than they are now? Not only that... isn't it possible they'd be better?
The acceptance speech always sets the tone for the entire presidency. So compare this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnA7OVIgLkE
To this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCx5Std7mCo
I'd pick the latter. Believe me, I was there.
At first glance, you might think that this is the run-of-the-mill "-insert some silly thing- for president" proclamation thats only meant to express vague dissatisfaction and a sense of humor. That might be the case, if it wasn't totally possible.
My dad used to sometimes refer to Frank Zappa's consideration of running for presidency in order to reinforce that fact. It's important to remember. The president doesn't have to have been a politician previously. That's why many entertainers, already being in the public eye, seized that opportunity, like this guy, this guy, and this guy.
Which is what irritates me about those who celebrate Barack Obamas presidency as a major shift in american politics. This guy isn't a revolutionary. He's He's not even a free thinker, compared to Frank Zappa or Chuck D. He's rather drab; more similar to this guy, or especially this guy. Whatever the implications of that are, it's certainly not that a new era of change and hope has commenced.
Though americans are slowly realizing that's the case, they haven't taken it to it's logical conclusion: that a politician is a politician no matter how he looks or how charismatic he may be, and further; we don't have to elect a politician. Imagine how things would be if Chuck D were elected president instead of Barrack Obama. Would our circumstances be worse than they are now? Not only that... isn't it possible they'd be better?
The acceptance speech always sets the tone for the entire presidency. So compare this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnA7OVIgLkE
To this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCx5Std7mCo
I'd pick the latter. Believe me, I was there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)