Violence

[Wizzy]

Budding

I think you take up a great point about the competition in life towards our neighbor applying pressure on us to 'succeed' in life but I just have to ask you about the people who like their job, like their family, like their firends, just like their whole lives but still loves to 'roll a fatty' every now and again just to relax?
Imagien the successfull painter who loves his wife and children, taking a syringe of heroin or sniffing a line of cocain because he can't handle life without it? There's no competition involved at all and he live for his work not the other way around, but yet, he want to get high to relive pressure, so where is that pressure comming from?

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Wizzy

Budding

I think you take up a great point about the competition in life towards our neighbor applying pressure on us to 'succeed' in life but I just have to ask you about the people who like their job, like their family, like their firends, just like their whole lives but still loves to 'roll a fatty' every now and again just to relax?
Imagien the successfull painter who loves his wife and children, taking a syringe of heroin or sniffing a line of cocain because he can't handle life without it? There's no competition involved at all and he live for his work not the other way around, but yet, he want to get high to relive pressure, so where is that pressure comming from?

Have you every considered why sobriety is the default position for Human Beings? Through the process of evolution, the Natural World has provided us with a state of mind that lends itself to survival, by providing a group of senses unhindered from ancillary chemical influence, whereby arming us with the best defense against the multitude of treats that are ever-present in our dynamic world. To the individual who engages in the process of disrupting this proven state-of-mind, all bets are off for his or her survival. I personally think the desire to indulge in behaviors that require the use of drugs is a mental sickness that reflects an ignorant arrogance for the Natural World, a world that offers an eloquent solution to this lack of self-awareness, the removal of the individual.

[Didymos Thomas]

Have you every considered why sobriety is the default position for Human Beings? Through the process of evolution, the Natural World has provided us with a state of mind that lends itself to survival, by providing a group of senses unhindered from ancillary chemical influence, whereby arming us with the best defense against the multitude of treats that are ever-present in our dynamic world. To the individual who engages in the process of disrupting this proven state-of-mind, all bets are off for his or her survival. I personally think the desire to indulge in behaviors that require the use of drugs is a mental sickness that reflects an ignorant arrogance for the Natural World, a world that offers an eloquent solution to this lack of self-awareness, the removal of the individual.

But there is no example of human life without chemical influence. The very foods we eat have an extreme impact on our brain and the way we function.
This "proven state-of-mind" you speak of does not exist.

More importantly, there are instances where the use of mind altering substances actually promote survival. Opiates and cannabis are ancient medicines, both still widely used. Cocaine is a still used for medicinal purposes. Amphetamine has been given to soldiers, most notably the SS, as a battle field aid. Hallucinogens are common in indigenous American spiritual practices, and are said to have numerous health and psychological benefits by those people who use ritually.

No one needs drugs. I do not suggest their use; I suggest living life without them if at all possible. As they relate to violence, drugs are a non-issue. Sure, some clearly promote violence (cocaine and amphetamine especially seem to promote violence in users), but not all users are necessarily violent.
Basically, violence is not something necessarily tied to drugs. Violence is the result of poor human decisions. Every drug can be used peacefully, and every drug can be used violently.

In today's world, discrimination and ignorance has forced a violent black market system upon the drug trade. The British Empire fought a war with China so that the British could continue to import opium against the dictates of the Chinese government trying to protect it's population against the fiery spread of opium addiction. What we have to understand is that a demand for drugs will always exist. What we do with that demand, and how we control that demand, and the supply, will determine how much violence comes out of the mill.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

But there is no example of human life without chemical influence. The very foods we eat have an extreme impact on our brain and the way we function.
This "proven state-of-mind" you speak of does not exist.

More importantly, there are instances where the use of mind altering substances actually promote survival. Opiates and cannabis are ancient medicines, both still widely used. Cocaine is a still used for medicinal purposes. Amphetamine has been given to soldiers, most notably the SS, as a battle field aid. Hallucinogens are common in indigenous American spiritual practices, and are said to have numerous health and psychological benefits by those people who use ritually.

No one needs drugs. I do not suggest their use; I suggest living life without them if at all possible. As they relate to violence, drugs are a non-issue. Sure, some clearly promote violence (cocaine and amphetamine especially seem to promote violence in users), but not all users are necessarily violent.
Basically, violence is not something necessarily tied to drugs. Violence is the result of poor human decisions. Every drug can be used peacefully, and every drug can be used violently.

In today's world, discrimination and ignorance has forced a violent black market system upon the drug trade. The British Empire fought a war with China so that the British could continue to import opium against the dictates of the Chinese government trying to protect it's population against the fiery spread of opium addiction. What we have to understand is that a demand for drugs will always exist. What we do with that demand, and how we control that demand, and the supply, will determine how much violence comes out of the mill.

The proven state-of-mind that I was referring to does exist, and it is identified by the distinction of sobriety. Sobriety refers to what is generally accepted as an individual uninfluenced by the use of a pervasive drug that produces physical effects that are not normally present without the consumption of the described drug. Any attempt to con volute this simply realization with examples such as, the intake of food and how that effects our state-of-mind serves no quantifiable purpose as compared to the effects of an actual drug which can be empirical measured as it pertains to the pervasive cognitive influence over a Human Being juxtaposed to the default position of sobriety. If you want to argue with the evolutionary process, be my guess, but history has showed it will be at your own peril, based on the mountain of empirical evidence generated by the foolish souls that lack the self-awareness to avoid an influence(drugs) that directly disarms them from the threats of a Natural World looking to consume them.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You would know more about this than I would; however, what of the some 30 or 40% of inmates who committed non-violent crimes?

Repeat offenses are high among all groups, but it's also well-known that violent criminals nearly always commit non-violent crimes before they become violent. Think about the study you'd have to do to isolate imprisonment as an independent risk factor for violent recidivism among non-violent ex-cons. You'd have to exclude all violent offenders, and prospectively for many years follow non-violent convicts, comparing those who were imprisoned with those who were not. You'd also need to control for many social and demographic factors. And you'd need to control for the nature of the first non-violent crime (including misdemeanor vs felony).

This would be a nearly impossible study. These people are at very high risk to begin with, and I'm not sure you can say with confidence that prison makes them worse -- even though logically one would have to worry...

[de_budding]

Originally Posted by Wizzy

Budding

Originally Posted by Wizzy

I think you take up a great point about the competition in life towards our neighbor applying pressure on us to 'succeed' in life but I just have to ask you about the people who like their job, like their family, like their firends, just like their whole lives but still loves to 'roll a fatty' every now and again just to relax?
Imagien the successfull painter who loves his wife and children, taking a syringe of heroin or sniffing a line of cocain because he can't handle life without it? There's no competition involved at all and he live for his work not the other way around, but yet, he want to get high to relive pressure, so where is that pressure comming from?

A few nitpicks first, 'just to relax' is prerequisite to not being relaxed.
And I've always wondered as I have no experience, if it is at all possible for some one to live off their art and (A) not be rich/famous or (B) not be running between character acting classes, voice over sessions, maybe some script writing, a spell of bankruptcy/depression etc. A stressful life, but one that is sacrificed for the art? Or I think art might somehow be stepping out the game, I hold art in high regard though compared to some.

And of course it is completely possible for one to obtain a basic self-sufficient life as well as self-sufficient happiness from a job and have, as well, a loving family and lots of friends but, still allow themselves to be caught up in lifestyle-games. I think relaxing with a drink, a spliff, a line of coke is just that- a way of relaxing, an example of isolation from something to allow the swelling to heal right? The same as partying with drugs, it is just a very refined and far less messy way to participate. But still, maybe said drug user is just one of the clever ones who has risen above the system via his personal convictions and goals, convictions and goals that just happen to incorporate the system allowing him to surpass it. I participate willingly but for myself, for my own goals and convictions and it just so happens that this includes education and a job. So it is possible to remove the element of competition and maybe artists are more prone to this? maybe drug users are more prone to this? They are something different that’s for sure.

Dan

[de_budding]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

The proven state-of-mind that I was referring to does exist, and it is identified by the distinction of sobriety. Sobriety refers to what is generally accepted as an individual uninfluenced by the use of a pervasive drug that produces physical effects that are not normally present without the consumption of the described drug. Any attempt to con volute this simply realization with examples such as, the intake of food and how that effects our state-of-mind serves no quantifiable purpose as compared to the effects of an actual drug which can be empirical measured as it pertains to the pervasive cognitive influence over a Human Being juxtaposed to the default position of sobriety. If you want to argue with the evolutionary process, be my guess, but history has showed it will be at your own peril, based on the mountain of empirical evidence generated by the foolish souls that lack the self-awareness to avoid an influence(drugs) that directly disarms them from the threats of a Natural World looking to consume them.

Doest this really incorporate drugs like anabolic steroids and cafeen, as well as medicines? In the sense that evolution is being brought into this- isn't it a case of providing evidence that all drugs have negative side effects? And therefore all altered states of body/mind via substance are negative alterations?

[Didymos Thomas]

Sobriety refers to what is generally accepted as an individual uninfluenced by the use of a pervasive drug that produces physical effects that are not normally present without the consumption of the described drug.

So, sobriety is not using something that produces physical side effects? But only if that something is a "pervasive drug"?

Why must the substance be a "pervasive drug" to produce intoxication (the conditions of not being sober)? Makes no difference if lightning strikes or if a candle is knocked over - if the barn burns down, the barn burns down.

What exactly is a pervasive drug? Are there cases of intoxication without pervasive drugs?

Any attempt to con volute this simply realization with examples such as, the intake of food and how that effects our state-of-mind serves no quantifiable purpose as compared to the effects of an actual drug which can be empirical measured as it pertains to the pervasive cognitive influence over a Human Being juxtaposed to the default position of sobriety.

Oh, but there is a purpose. That purpose relates to the definitions of drug and sobriety, and whether or not these things are necessarily harmful.

What I think this comes down to is a cultural bias. You are trying to sell a version of sobriety that fits your particular values. Again I bring up the many cultures which use hallucinogens for medicinal and spiritual purposes. Again, I bring up the varied medical uses of substances which you call a drug.

RuthlessLogic, your claim is too extreme to defend. There are obviously some cases where the use of drugs are beneficial. No one is claiming they are necessarily good, but they are obviously not necessarily more harmful than helpful.

[Wizzy]

Ruthless Logic

Oh man, sorry dude but I'm chosing the corner of budding and thomas on this one..

Why is sobriety so important in the first place? Don't you know that a moderate intake of alcohol for example is healthy for the mind and acctually makes the mind work better? I'm talking small amounts here but that have to qualify fo "pervasive drug" doesn't it? You kill braincells, true, but you do kill the slow and un-healthy braincells first, making the surviving braincells more effective...

Ofcourse all drugs have side-effects, all things have side-effects... The three strike system which america uses have the side-effect of turning non-violent criminals into violent criminals if they have two strikes.. Electing George Bush had the side effect of everybody in the world hating you for it.. A normal aspirin can give you a whole bunch of different thing that's negative..
Even though this is all true, drugs are often good.. If you had heart problems you'd be taking the medz in a second and you know it even if they made your skin green and cloth ripped to shreds only leaving the convinient part that covers your 'private parts'...

And another thing: throwing around big words might it seem like you know what you are talking about in normal and especially political contexts, in philosophy, it normaly just makes you look like you are covering up the fact that you can't honestly back up your claims... Not saying that you do that just saying that it makes it look that way...

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Wizzy

And I'm not sure how the prison system function in America but here in Sweden atleast when you've done your time, you are released to the same streets, the same firend, without an apartment or cash so ofcourse people get stuck in the system, it's not easy to break that circle and so the system is flawed as best....

Having socialized with people "of ill repute" let's say, I'd say that usually gang related / crime related lifestyles are a system imposed via boredom, and not so much via poverty. It is known that people will do anything for fun especially when they're young, and it is moral fibre that holds people within certain limits, restraining them. My opinion is that gang culture is heavily relevant to indoctrination, and not particularly to poverty - it takes one person to start off a whole movement, rather like religion - and as far as I can tell breaking out of the chain is like breaking a ritualistic indoctrination to take drugs; in that it is possible but one has to refrain from social circles and find some way to kill the boredom without falling into the 'gateway' trap of marijuana and alcohol - or by analogy gambling and petty crime. Of course a doctrine far more prevalent than simple gang crime is the 'american dream', telling people to buy in order to improve - at the end of the day it's just an indoctrination that can be broken, just like a drug habit.

I agree that crime rates are high because of the 'american dream' - yet they were high before and will be after - the 'american dream' is just a name for something heavily relevant to western style living; consumption, desire and fiscal class systems, among other factors. If we can abolish some of the factors then we'd go a long way to reduce the allure of crime - desire has been tried and for many people desire is reduced, and people resist attractive opportunities. Consumption might be another or fiscal class systems could be, it's just a question I think of co-opting religion and editing it ever so slightly, it seems to me that not much else can stop a youth from entering a gang when for example their family is in ruin or dead and their environment is amiss with drugs and prostitution. Of course we have to remember that gangs wouldn't be there to sell heroin or prostitutes if there wasn't a market, so surely steal the business from the gangsters and make drugs legal and sex before marriage morally acceptable. Makes sense to me.

Of course the state could step in, and (in a slightly communist style) indoctrinate youths into working for a system - like the state sponsored arts or sport. The people I know who did sport only found drugs and debauchery when they were around 20 rather than 13 or even younger - my opinion is that the state should scout for youths to enter academies, that way there'd be at least one more reason to hold schooling in preference to entertainment.

I could ramble on like this for ever, and I've probably missed the point anyway...

Chocolate, pork, salt, sugar, milk, blood - they're all drugs psychoactive or not, maybe bread isn't a drug but in the Christian church it is used like a drug.

And therefore all altered states of body/mind via substance are negative alterations?

I'd go the whole hog and say that all altered states are positive alterations - simply because they DO something, they create an emotion/etc, they very rarely UNDO something, thus they have an additive nature which is positive.

Second I'd say that most drugs have benefits, and the massive problems they might cause are simply a case of indoctrination; so it is the people at fault and not the drugs. a problem for me is that drugs are so often a middle man between a person and crime, if they were legal they would be a middle man between a person and art for example.