How can I convince my friend that not everything about drugs and users are bad

[Soul Garden]

I have a friend who is completely anti-drug. Especially against marijuana. Despite evidence, he believes it does not help cancer, has almost no beneficial uses, that it lacks real industrial uses, etc... He also thinks every user of marijuana is "A lazy piece of shit who doesn't contribute to society." Another friend of mine showed him a website called hemphasis. Something like that. The anti-drug friend (Let's call him "J") goes on to say how biased it is. Is the comment he made about marijuana users not biased? It is very black and white and, of course, biased Check this out. I said I like to smoke occasionally and drink occasionally. I also like to do hallucinogenics/psychedelics every once in a while for the creative, spiritual, and enlightening purposes. This makes me a "drug-addict". I am a "drug-addict" because I can't stop using anything for a few months. There's been more than enough times where I have gone off drugs for a few months. No withdrawals, no cravings, etc... Yet, I am a "drug-addict". J also says that I shouldn't be using hallucinogenics/psychedelics to make life "more interesting". Not only am I trying to make life more interesting, I'm also finding more "escapes". J says that I have no improvements and that I am not a friend, but a "science subject". J has no knowledge of drugs whatsoever. Anyone who uses drugs is obviously trying to "escape", make life "more interesting", and is also a "lazy piece of shit who does nothing to contribute to society." No matter how many articles, documentaries, research papers, etc... I show him, he stands his place. I've also pointed out how the indians and ancient civilizations have used drugs for thousands of years during ceremonies, rituals, etc... I guess they were drug-addicts who did't contribute to their societies, right? His main defence towards what I have to say about drugs and users is, "This is not true, do research." I do more than enough research everyday on unbiased websites. I don't know where he gets him information from, but it's incorrect and very black and white. What can I do to convince J that we're not all bad and that not all drugs are bad?

 

[pasha]

homeless -> sex, love & relationships

 

[JackARoe]

Soul Garden, your friend is teaching you a valuable lesson. That we can't change people. Just live by example. All my life I had been the "druggie" to most people I knew. Family, friends, and most who knew me. Yes, I liked all drugs, and some have brought me to ruin, but psychedelics always had that special place, and I can remember trying to convince a few people of the benefits. It never works, I have learned if someone isn't asking, then any answer will not work. Of course your friend stands his ground. But if he is a true friend you should be able to let this go and just live your life the way you want and he will be there. If not then he wasn't a friend. So be yourself and enjoy that. Follow those callings to psychedelics and use them as important tools instead of drugs. Digest life after trips, if trips are too close together there is a spiritual indigestion, sort of like eating food to close together. Let it digest. And should you decide this person truly is a friend, keep being kind and set an example. And never never never give anyone anything they didn't ask for!

I just read your post on PD about 2C's and mescaline. Keep that inquisitive but skeptical nature and you will go far. I can tell. I never post but this one brought me out. I was the "druggie" for years, now way later in life I seem to be the one that is happily married, stable, and just flat out nice. Most people who never did drugs that I know are in some form of chaos and seem flat out nuts! It can take a while to feel good about the psychedelic lifestyle when people look down on you. But now I know it doesn't matter at all what others think, it was me making peace with it myself. That is the most important piece to the whole post.

 

[pofacedhoe]

he's an idiot, i'm sorry but its true and with idiots evidence is of no use because they believe what they want. i would give up trying to change him and just ignore the labels he puts on you and if you enjoy him as a friend accept him for what he is -one of your stupider more ignorant friends.

i have a variety of friends and if you really like him stop trying to change him because if he had the brains to think outside the box it would have happened already

 

[llama112]

Why is he your friend?

He seems like a closed minded judgemental idiot. Sorry to be blunt. He won't listen, he's not going to change, you've already tried. It seems like you've tried pretty hard, giving him good resources of information. Even my parents aren't that against weed (other drugs, yeah... weed, no).

 

[Laughing Man]

As others have pointed out, it is a waste of time trying to convince a critic that drug use is a legitimate tool for inner exploration of the mind .
Even friends who were former drug users when they were younger but have become self righteous about drug use. Like a born again, they are often the most rigid of thinkers.
Don't waste your time on trying to change other people's minds.
The confident psychonaut does not need the approval of others.

 

[augustaB]

I disagree with Jackaroe about not being able to change people.
Yes people don't change instantly but slow exposure to other ideas and a good example does have an influence.
Your friend has probably bought into a whole set of ideas (or world view) in which drug use and drug users are condemned.
What he needs to change is his world view and that may happen.
After all it was Gautama who said that nothing changes as quickly as the human mind.

 

[Nom de Plume]

Most people are not so intransigent and stubborn as to be effectively unpersuadable. It just appears that way because most people who attempt to persuade other people are either utterly incapable of persuasive argumentation or they simply don't have the fortitude to avoid exasperation and eventually quitting prematurely. Consider how your friend was persuaded to adopt a negative perception of drugs, which was likely because of the persuasiveness of Drug War proponents. If anti-drug arguments can persuade your friend, what sense would it make to suggest pro-drug arguments cannot?

It's crucial to understand that everyone has the capacity to be persuaded, but not everyone or everything is persuasive. It isn't an easy skill to learn, and success or failure typically depends on how well one assays the situation or context beforehand and how well they adjust their stratagem accordingly. I don't have the time nor the impetus to delineate all the factors that go into persuasion and everything that one should learn or improve upon.


All the education in rhetoric, argumentation, persuasion, psychological manipulation, etc is at your fingertips. If you discover you lack the ambition to peruse the web for this information, then you probably also lack the ambition to utilize any of my advice and justify the time it takes to type it all out.


However, I will say that a fairly typical mistake people are prone to commit would be to suppose that the veracity and rigor of one's argumentation is somehow commensurate with the argument's persuasiveness. This is a completely absurd and erroneous assumption. Facts are only useful if the audience is perceptive and abreast enough to know what is and is not a fact, which most people don't know and don't care to. Adhering to facts is important if and only if not doing so has the potential to undermine the plausibility of your argument and besmirch your reputation and credibility.


What's vital is your believability and the audience's level of credulity. If casuistry and sophism can be given a veneer of eloquence, plausibility, and authority, and if the audience is easily impressed with mendacious grandiosity or appeals to emotion or other fallacious and oversubtle reasoning, then that's the strategy to use.


This fact shouldn't come as an incredible surprise. Politicians regularly find use for this strategy in campaigning and public relations wherein they successfully—and with a rather deft and enviable panache—manage to beguile the hoi polloi almost daily. It doesn't take long for attorneys to become utterly disillusioned with the insane notion of a rational and impartial jury, totally unimpressed by chicanery and rhetoric. Every good attorney is aware of the fact that clever language, emotional appeals, and a winsome appearance are as important—indeed, if not more important—than the facts and evidence of a case.

 

[LilbabiC]

Why would you want to be friends with someone who doesn't think of you as an equal but, rather as you put it "a science project"?

If you feel satisfied with your life and that includes the use of drugs, then it is your business and you needn't prove anything to anyone.

 

[pofacedhoe]

Most people are not so intransigent and stubborn as to be effectively unpersuadable. It just appears that way because most people who attempt to persuade other people are either utterly incapable of persuasive argumentation or they simply don't have the fortitude to avoid exasperation and eventually quitting prematurely. Consider how your friend was persuaded to adopt a negative perception of drugs, which was likely because of the persuasiveness of Drug War proponents. If anti-drug arguments can persuade your friend, what sense would it make to suggest pro-drug arguments cannot?

It's crucial to understand that everyone has the capacity to be persuaded, but not everyone or everything is persuasive. It isn't an easy skill to learn, and success or failure typically depends on how well one assays the situation or context beforehand and how well they adjust their stratagem accordingly. I don't have the time nor the impetus to delineate all the factors that go into persuasion and everything that one should learn or improve upon.


All the education in rhetoric, argumentation, persuasion, psychological manipulation, etc is at your fingertips. If you discover you lack the ambition to peruse the web for this information, then you probably also lack the ambition to utilize any of my advice and justify the time it takes to type it all out.


However, I will say that a fairly typical mistake people are prone to commit would be to suppose that the veracity and rigor of one's argumentation is somehow commensurate with the argument's persuasiveness. This is a completely absurd and erroneous assumption. Facts are only useful if the audience is perceptive and abreast enough to know what is and is not a fact, which most people don't know and don't care to. Adhering to facts is important if and only if not doing so has the potential to undermine the plausibility of your argument and besmirch your reputation and credibility.


What's vital is your believability and the audience's level of credulity. If casuistry and sophism can be given a veneer of eloquence, plausibility, and authority, and if the audience is easily impressed with mendacious grandiosity or appeals to emotion or other fallacious and oversubtle reasoning, then that's the strategy to use.


This fact shouldn't come as an incredible surprise. Politicians regularly find use for this strategy in campaigning and public relations wherein they successfully—and with a rather deft and enviable panache—manage to beguile the hoi polloi almost daily. It doesn't take long for attorneys to become utterly disillusioned with the insane notion of a rational and impartial jury, totally unimpressed by chicanery and rhetoric. Every good attorney is aware of the fact that clever language, emotional appeals, and a winsome appearance are as important—indeed, if not more important—than the facts and evidence of a case.

yeah thats cool but who really has time for that shit? much easier to find less ignorant people in the first place

 

[pasha]

^agreed. but at times we're too stubborn in how we think we can change other human beings. it's a constant struggle. do i stay and change them, or do i find people that are already fit for me. i keep choosing the former and it never ended well.

 

[Nom de Plume]

yeah thats cool but who really has time for that shit? much easier to find less ignorant people in the first place

I concur. However, that doesn't appear to be something the OP would prefer doing. If it was, would he have created this thread to solicit people's advice on how to persuade his friend? Probably not.

And since the OP seems to be solely concerned with persuading his friend, advising him to get new friends is irrelevant and unhelpful.

 

[pofacedhoe]

And since the OP seems to be solely concerned with persuading his friend, advising him to get new friends is irrelevant and unhelpful.

nah its called having wisdom and life experience- also as you may note i told him to accept his friend for the friendship to work.

changing people is a waste of time- the only methods that work are very unscrupulous and no-one who really likes their friend or respected them would go to those lengths to alter their way of thinking

talking about techniques politicians use to manipulate the public isn't going to improve his relationship with his friend because you need trust for a friendship to work and those techniques are underhanded

 

[Nom de Plume]

pofacedhoe,

nah its called having wisdom and life experience- also as you may note i told him to accept his friend for the friendship to work.

That may be. However, all wise advise is not necessarily germane advice. And no rational person—with the exception of cynics and pessimists—asks a question with the sincere expectation of being proffered an inapposite answer.

changing people is a waste of time- the only methods that work are very unscrupulous and no-one who really likes their friend or respected them would go to those lengths to alter their way of thinking

Perhaps that's the case. But probity and time efficiency are not within the purview of this thread. The concern is not whether to do X or what the pros and cons of one doing or not doing X are. Rather, it's about how to do X. The decision to do it or not do it seems to already have been made some time before the OP composed this thread.

talking about techniques politicians use to manipulate the public isn't going to improve his relationship with his friend because you need trust for a friendship to work and those techniques are underhanded

I'm sure everyone is sincerely impressed by your moralism and self-righteous homily. However, it's still irrelevant and off-topic.

 

[pofacedhoe]

I'm sure everyone is sincerely impressed by your moralism and self-righteous homily. However, it's still irrelevant and off-topic.

i wouldn't say i'm self righteous more that i have moral character itself to begin with. The op has a problem with his relationship with his friend, the question is at heart about getting his friend to accept him and his viewpoints so that his friend will stop labelling him a drug addict when he hasn't got an addiction. Most people dont have years to fix their friendships- they are asking for help because its at a crossroads point already. friendships are built around trust and mutual respect and the op wants his friend to respect him, its hardly showing his friend respect to try and slyly manipulate his views. if you can't see that this is about a human connection and view it merely as how can i brainwash my friend then you're missing the point of the original post. the answers given are not innappropriate to the question- they come from the experience of others dealing with similar situations and how those situations panned out over time.

you can take a horse to water but you cant make it drink

this saying exists for a reason- i recently had this exact row with an intelligent housemate of mine who wouldn't accpet that more people (a lot more) die from alcohol than MDMA, in the end it wasn't worth pushing it even though i was right because some people just dont want to accept views outside their own belief system.

it was like the stubborn donkey from family guy

 

[pasha]

changing people is a waste of time- the only methods that work are very unscrupulous and no-one who really likes their friend or respected them would go to those lengths to alter their way of thinking

talking about techniques politicians use to manipulate the public isn't going to improve his relationship with his friend because you need trust for a friendship to work and those techniques are underhanded

not entirely. by saying that you're essentially saying that psychotherapy and cbt are a waste of time. also, i doubt you've never changed the way a friend or a family member feels or sees something. you can show people your perspective and change theirs without being manipulative and having an agenda. i'm not even sure how you arrived at that conclusion frankly. we're not talking about governments here. we're talking about human interaction. i've changed my mothers perspective about drugs. does that make me manipulative?

this saying exists for a reason- i recently had this exact row with an intelligent housemate of mine who wouldn't accpet that more people (a lot more) die from alcohol than MDMA, in the end it wasn't worth pushing it even though i was right because some people just dont want to accept views outside their own belief system.

it was like the stubborn donkey from family guy

it depends on the person. and how willing and accepting they are to sharing perspectives and being comfortable with having theirs changed. give me your perspective on why heroin is worst than cigarettes and if your thoughts and ideas are interesting, draw my attention, and make me think differently about the subject at hand, i would have no problem changing my perspective, or maybe slightly adding to it or tweaking it.

it's not brainwashing. i think you might need to mince your words a touch.

 

[pofacedhoe]

^changing your mothers opinion is a bit different, she has a much more vested interest in getting long with you than someone you made friends with does (unless you have a bad family relationship). my mums opinion has changed over the years as in it has taken maybe 10 years for her opinions to slowly morph. and it was a form of persistent opinion propaganda (mild brainwashing due to frequency of said notion) and it did work. but my mum is more important than any friend i have come across and having a similar disposition to me its way more likely to work. because at one point i was all like drugs are bad m'kay.

do i have time for that with a friendship with someone who is insulting me and being judgemental about my lifestyle? probably not. thats where i'm coming from. also i think in my case my attitude is age dependent.

when i was younger i was all like "yay lets change everyones ideas, mushrooms are amazing" and as time went on i realised that the effort required is a lot (often huge) and that in the process because you are always trying to shove an idea down someones throat that its actually quite an annoying behaviour pattern to push on your friends. if you really want their opinion to change quick they have to try the drug (this works for MDMA very well) but ultimately pushing drugs is not a thing i ever do.

to put in context how about if the question was " my friend doesn't believe that the war in iraq was for oil". its an opinion of the kind that some people will have and some will not (like 1.drugs are bad m'kay, and 2.drugs are cool woooo!). people would be all like thats your friends opinion and they are entitled to it, but because bluelight is based around harm reduction in relation to drugs and the majority of site users are open to the use of drugs its seen as okay to push an agenda? if you want to think thats not shoving it down someones throat then fine, but from what i can tell people who will change their ideas on drugs nearly always do so from taking the drug and those who dont want to often never change their ideas and its like talking to a wall.

maybe i've just had lots of years experience and grown weary from trying to get people to see the truth thats in front of them and just given up. some people see things for what they are and some are viewing it through some other notion of thier own and to be honest i just try and get along with people now rather than to alter their belief system cos its just a lot of effort for very little positive outcome.

unless you have taken a psychedlic (5ht2a to be more precise) you will never have a clue what its like to be in that magical mindset with outer body connections to the universe/pretty brain colours. for example go to PD and talk to the trippers. some will be like tripping is spiritual and connects me to the universe and the other side will be all like nah its just pretty colours and drugs making your brain think things and surprisingly they're just as stuck in their ways as everyone else. both sides might be true anyway

 

[neversickanymore]

I don't think you have much of a chance with this one.. but im pretty sure everybody has their "thing".. whats this close minds thing?

Post up his thing so we might have a go at exposing the pettiness and folly of this arogant mans self righteous and self endowed correctness. I hope its bloody religion.

 

[Nom de Plume]

I don't think you have much of a chance with this one.. but im pretty sure everybody has their "thing".. whats this close minds thing?

Post up his thing so we might have a go at exposing the pettiness and folly of this arogant mans self righteous and self endowed correctness. I hope its bloody religion.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "thing".


I presume it's used in this context to mean something tantamount to a sort of substratal ideology—whether it be theological, political, philosophical, etc—that either imbues or biases people's opinions and perceptions, or perhaps serves as a sort of paradigm that functions as the chassis within which ideas and opinions are only formulated and allowed to be congruous with and conforming to the aforementioned paradigm, for its own "sustenance" and legitimacy. The upshot of which is a tendentious and stifled perspective. This is a sort of species of dispositional and occurrent beliefs, systemic bias, and so forth.


It may be envisaged as a theoretical cognitive iron-cast mold, wherein poorly-fitted ideas are eschewed and others are accepted. Novel or contrariant notions that cannot be reconciled or incorporated into one's weltanschauuung or political/religious/philosophical presuppositions are jettisoned or rationalized away.


Your idea of this "thing" and it's veritable existence is evident enough to obviate my expounding it any further.


But while I agree with the first paragraph, I cannot help but to take umbrage with the incredibly fallacious and unnecessarily pugnacious suggestion you include in the comment's second paragraph. Not only is it puerile, it's ineffective. You begin by a rational and cogent statement in paragraph 1, and take it to an egregiously irrational conclusion in paragraph 2.


While it's a patently obvious fact that people develop beliefs that affirm their underlying preconceived and indurated assumptions, the real key to changing those beliefs is not attacking the underlying preconceived assumptions—like their religion or philosophy or political ideas. Rather, one should take an approach of reconciling the novel and controversial belief with their foundational assumptions and doctrines.


For example, a staunch Muslim or ardent Christian will never be convinced of evolutionary biology by someone having "a go at exposing the pettiness and folly" of their beliefs.


While not bulletproof or guaranteed to succeed, the success rate is far higher if one is attempting to demonstrate how evolution and, say, Islam are compatible and are not diametrically opposed to one another.


(As a caveat, my position is not that Islam and evolutionary biology are mutually compatible, in fact. However, the 40,000+ denominations of Christianity alone should be enough proof that religion allows for the acceptance and adoption of all sorts of tenets and doctrines not supported by their holy books and scripture).


Reconciliation and consolidation of seemingly opposing notions is incredibly more effective for recalcitrant ideologues and zealots than is reprehension and aminadversion, the latter two both being more likely to have the obverse effect of strengthening a person's intransigence and making them more cocksure and dogged about their beliefs.

And I implore you to take the time and thought necessary to understand what I am writing here, and not act like an uncouth troglodyte or an annoying contrarian by diving headfirst into rebuke and dissent without comprehension—which appears de rigueur on the Internet.

 

[RollYourBoat]

If he isn't persuaded by facts and figures, then he probably needs to be taught that not all users are bad people, the same way he was probably taught that they are: by example. Human beings cling to beliefs even when they've been scientifically proven wrong by nature (i.e. the universe revolves around us, religions, the earth is flat, morals, etc.) and they generally cling harder to those beliefs when they are told they are wrong. Let's admit it, nobody likes to be wrong.
Solution? Be his friend, and expect nothing more than friendship. You can keep smoking weed, and enjoying the occasional psychadelic trip without trying to convince him that you're still a good person. If you truly are a decent person, that'll show without you needing to tell him.
He will either learn to accept that and change his opinion slowly, or his friendship isn't worth the time.