CEPS Well Hung Parliament (CEPS Social/Off Topic)

[Shrooms00087]

Opium, computer parts, 99 cent toy figures... that's about it...

From what I understand they don't do much importing of opium. Rather it's an export which comes in giant bricks, stamped. Goes to legit drug dealers, and the illegitimate drug dealers.

 

[23536]

Congrats dude!

/oh, and I've spent ~5hrs, unsuccessfully so far, trying to remove AdAware from a win7 computer. WTF? Used to be a good program, now the shit is adware!
//if anyone wants to be a pal and pm any tips, it'd make my life right now.. revo isn't recognizing it, uninstall isn't recognizing it, and even when I do strip it off, it reinstalls itself. I've been on linux for just couple months and feel like a newb on windows now, so fucking embarrassing because this is someone else's laptop I was trying to help with! GGggrrr!!!

Revio won't remove 64 bit programs.

Just do it through the control panel.

 

[Jabberwocky]

^haha FUCK BONZI BUDDY (and cnet/dl.com!)
It's not listed in control panel.. i'm almost wondering if it installed improperly or something, I mean even crapware has 'uninstall' option in its folder or in the program's interface, this adaware11 has no uninstall options in its folders, no icon in add/remove programs, and even when I kill every instance of it from processes/services, i still can't kill the lavasoft folder because it's "in use"

/bonzi buddy gave me a good lol :D

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ This usually works for 'in use' files

http://download.cnet.com/Unlocker/3000-2248_4-10493998.html

And what about one of those apps with forced uninstall options, like (iirc) CCCleaner?

I dunno, I suspect I'm trying to teach granny how to suck eggs here

 

[bit_pattern]

Can't believe this passed without comment

You guys obviously don't have a sense of humour to share among the lot of you

 

[23536]

Cable news is practically all gay all the time now. In the meantime, recreational drug users keep getting shafted and nobody cares unless the drug is marijuana.

I need a better verb there than "shafted", but all other viable options seem to connote anal rape.

What did the gay rights movement do to garner so much sympathy, and how can the drug rights movement emulate it? Is there such a thing as a drug rights movement?

Ravaged? Despoiled? Plundered? Razed? Do you see what I mean?

 

[Bardeaux]

^The gay rights movement followed the line of equal rights and anti-discrimination as it's something they can't change about themselves. It might be difficult for drug users to emulate such a thing.

The things everyone wants to talk about nowadays are the deficit and job creation. Drug users should take advantage of this and use the war on drugs as an example of extreme budgetary concern and a job killer, as a criminal record due to drug use pretty much axes alot of job opportunity.

 

[23536]

I can't really change my desire to do drugs either. I'm pretty sure this is typical.

But I think drug use as a human right is more convincing than the socioeconomic benefits of legalization.

 

[Jabberwocky]

^Drugs being seen as only self-destructive is definitely a huge problem, it'd help to have good, responsible users be open "live out loud", though w/ the threat of imprisonment I understand the hesitation.

/lol perhaps drug rights will proceed from gay rights? IME, gay dudes use drugs at a much higher rate than the general population, although that's based on my incredibly narrow POV of the subject. There is certainly the undeniable reality that both activities - homosexuality and drug use - are things that are maligned by those who aren't even affected by them, it's straights V homo's and prohibitionists/alcohol users V drug users; Maybe just the idea that, if something doesn't affect you/society, you stay the fuck away and mind your own business.

 

[Shrooms00087]

I can't really change my desire to do drugs either. I'm pretty sure this is typical.

But I think drug use as a human right is more convincing than the socioeconomic benefits of legalization.

What? Yes you can. You're just implying that it is absolutely impossible to stop using drugs. As to your concern that other drugs aren't getting the attention they need, think about this. People still allow marijuana to be 'scary'. --Yeah lets throw heroin into the mix of the "Legalization Issue". That's a one way ticket to failure.

 

[23536]

Of course you can change your habits, but you can't extinguish your desire (generally speaking). This thing is genetic.

It's more or less exactly like teh gay.

 

[Shrooms00087]

A little absurd. It's an illness, if anything. Genetically speaking one may be prone to addiction, but that is only valid if one takes drugs!

 

[23536]

It is not an illness. Drug taking is perfectly natural. Like abything else, it can be done irresponsibly, but with proper perspective it can hugely enrich a person's life.

The main point, though, is that a free person cannot morally be told to not take a chemical, regardless of that person's motive. The grossest abuse of this principle is the State telling you that you cannot take a medicine that you know will improve you (be it heroin or psilocybin), but it is also immoral to tell a person that he or she cannot partake of a chemical for pure enjoyment.

 

[Jabberwocky]

It is not an illness. Drug taking is perfectly natural. Like abything else, it can be done irresponsibly, but with proper perspective it can hugely enrich a person's life.

"illness", in the psychological sense, is so widely disagreed upon. WRT drugs, I certainly see any compulsive usage, from cigarettes to shooting dope, as symptomatic of psychological 'weakness'/'illness', but I do not feel the same when it comes to other drugs; weed/alcohol/ecstasy, used appropriately, don't come across as "healthy"/"sick" habits, just activities, and I tend to think higher of ppls' psyches if they're the type who integrate psychedelics in appropriate ways.
Throw non-psychoactive drugs like steroids/PED's/sex drugs into the mix, and it's clear why approaching the issue as monolithic is nonsense. That's why they need delineation in the public arena and that will only happen when responsible ppl using drugs responsibly, acknowledge it. There's already enough "drug culture subforum"-esque shit in the news that the public is MORE than aware of the bad, but most are utterly unaware there's much good.


On morality::drugs, I've always seen compulsive usage as immoral; responsible usage as moral; abstinence for reasons of having been told no by the state as cowardly.

 

[Bardeaux]

I can't really change my desire to do drugs either. I'm pretty sure this is typical.

But I think drug use as a human right is more convincing than the socioeconomic benefits of legalization.

The problem is getting the public to accept this. The current schema is "drug users choose to take drugs", as a lifestyle choice. The marijuana legalization/decriminalization movement gained so much traction because it's a harmless plant that doesn't carry much extra baggage with it. How do we frame a similar argument for the legalization/decriminaliztion of all drugs?

I don't disagree with the goal, btw.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The problem is getting the public to accept this.

I'm not sure it's possible to get a majority of the public to agree that using Substance D is acceptable, but I don't think that's so much the point. It's getting the public to accept that it's an individual's choice, even if it's a terrible one, to try things if they want and accept the consequences (good or bad) and live their own lives w/o coercion.

The current schema is "drug users choose to take drugs", as a lifestyle choice.

Of course using drugs is a choice, and for many users of the harder-reinforcing compounds, it doesn't seem like a choice but it is (everything from the first usage of a compound that one could/should* know is a very dangerous choice to use, to the continued usage)
[*"should" is, sadly, a bad word to use there, but w/ the internet it is becoming increasingly easy to learn these things. A large part of the problem is that a kid has some drinks, smokes some bud or trips on acid, and has a great time - or even a bad time - but realizes it's not remotely as bad as they were taught, not something that's remotely warranting of caging a person. Subconsciously, they reason that the "drugs r bad" thing is farce - which it is in respects to SOME drugs - and they use other drugs, the ones that are truly bad, the ones that nobody in their right mind would like to see in existence. Then, after having used some times, well.....this is bluelight, I think we all know how seemingly impossible it can be/feel to get oneself out of the clutches of an addiction, it's w/o a doubt the hardest experience many addicts will ever go through. It's almost "appropriate" or 'balanced' in the context of what drugs offer (I'm of the opinion that some drugs can evoke experiences that are the best in one's life, experiences unparalleled in any sober state), but w/ distortions like the war on drugs, gross misinformation/lack of information, and the conflation of all psychoactive compounds into the monolithic category "drugs", it's very easy for ppl to fall into the trap. Marijuana usage, ecstasy, psychedelics, can be of immense value to the human experience. It's only very very small % of humanity who can benefit from things like opiods/meth, but the line of demarcation(sp?) is not only blurry/hidden/misleading to many, but many are unaware that there even is much difference because as mentioned "drugs" tend to just be viewed as a homogenous category when they are anything but)

/apologies for spelling/ranting, am crazy hungover

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

A little absurd. It's an illness, if anything. Genetically speaking one may be prone to addiction, but that is only valid if one takes drugs!

Being prone to addiction could also show up in other, non-drug behaviors.

 

[Shrooms00087]

*Aside from the fact this is wavering from his original proposition:
When you say "behavior" this sounds like it would immediately be under a different kind of classification.

Being addicted is specific to drug use. What would your example(s) be?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Not to speak for EW but think he just means all compulsive behaviors, like that underlying will power issue that's central to both drug addiction and gambling problems or overeating problems.
[edit/added: you could even go a step further and show how, for instance, certain shitty foods are self-reinforcing in a real biological, measurable sense, though obviously not nearly the 'monkey' drugs are in this regard. The rush from gambling doesn't physically reinforce itself in remotely the same primary ways that consumed things [food/drugs/etc] do]

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

*Aside from the fact this is wavering from his original proposition:
When you say "behavior" this sounds like it would immediately be under a different kind of classification.

Being addicted is specific to drug use. What would your example(s) be?

Sex, food, or other behaviors such as gambling, spending, computer use, etc.

Basically anything that gives the brain that "reward" function, in the absence of a strong ability to control that desire, can lead to addiction. Many people will never experience that and cannot understand such behavior, even to the point of denying an addiction is possible. But it's all the same behavior/reward circuits in the brain. Some people will destroy their lives for just a little temporary pleasure.