The Meth effect

[zx13xz]

Trying something and not getting addicted somehow means I don't know how the drug works. Very interesting. As someone who isn't really addicted to anything, I think I am in a perfect state to say that it is possible to try a lot of things and never become addicted. A junkie with fried out dopamine receptors is probably the last person I would listen to about anything though.

 

[Chubba75]

Trying something and not getting addicted somehow means I don't know how the drug works.

It means you don't know how Meth addiction works.

As someone who isn't really addicted to anything, I think I am in a perfect state to say that it is possible to try a lot of things and never become addicted.

Not everyone is in the same situation as you.

A junkie with fried out dopamine receptors is probably the last person I would listen to about anything though.

Wow, calling me a junkie, such a big man.

 

[zx13xz]

Interesting how you set a double standard where personal attacks are okay for you to engage in, but when I do it, it is somehow wrong?
My main and original point was to argue that drugs should be legal because the government has no right to tell you what you can and can't put into your body. Saying that meth is bad for you and makes you do crazy things really isn't arguing that point. One argument is about safety and the other is about personal liberty. As Ben Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I never once said that it was completely safe to use meth or that you couldn't get addicted to meth, but my main focus is that it is not the government's place to tell people what they can do to their own bodies, only to protect those rights from infringement by other people. The government is not meant to protect people from things they freely do to themselves. I don't see how you can generalize your experience to restrict the rights of other free people? That is like saying peanuts should be illegal simply because many people are allergic to them. It is a completely fascist thing to do.
Also, just because you experience something, that doesn't mean you have a good understanding of what is going on with your brain and body chemistry. Someone, especially an addict, is going to have a very hard time distinguishing between what aspects of their addiction are based on actual physical dependency, and what is psychological addiction. Also, someone who refuses to do any research on the topic really has no place in saying what is true for anyone but themselves, and even then might have no idea what is going on other then "i feel like crap without meth" and "meth makes me feel like crap".

 

[Chubba75]

I don't see how you can generalize your experience to restrict the rights of other free people?

It's just not my experience, it's all around me. Not everybody was given a privledged life like you, you obviously don't know what it's like for some people. So go on, stand on your high horse and call us "junkies" and whinge about your freedom and be oblivious to all the pain, suffering and damage that occurs everyday.

 

[zx13xz]

Who ever said I have a privledged life? That is rather funny. You bitch at me for making judgements even when I don't know the specifics of your life yet you come back and do the same thing to me? Don't you get tired of being a hypocrite? I really don't see how a persons social status has anything to do with drug use. I know many people affected by a lot of different types of addiction. In case you didn't know what is "all around you" is your LIMITED experience. I doubt you have been everywhere there is to go, and unless you have, you have to go on statistics which show that on the list of problems such as starvation and epidemic diseases, meth addiction would be a treat compared to the lives some people have to live. I mean, you have access to the internet, that puts you in a top PRIVLEDGED 10% of the world's population. I am not oblivious to pain and suffering, but I care a hell of a lot more about people that are suffering due to what the governments of the richest countries are doing to the governments of other countries than I do about people that bring about their own suffering (whether they intended to or not).

 

[Chubba75]

In case you didn't know what is "all around you" is your LIMITED experience.

I've seen plenty of addiction, so don't tell me it's limited.

I doubt you have been everywhere there is to go, and unless you have, you have to go on statistics which show that on the list of problems such as starvation and epidemic diseases, meth addiction would be a treat compared to the lives some people have to live.

How very wrong you are. I can not think of anything in western society that is worst then Meth addiction, if you factor everything in.

I mean, you have access to the internet, that puts you in a top PRIVLEDGED 10% of the world's population.

I'm not even going to try explain that one.

 

[zx13xz]

What you know is limited to what you have seen. You may have seen lots of addiction, but there is only so much one person can experience. Also, most people that use meth responsibly, you would never know about it because they aren't all fucked up like the addicts are.
I'm sure people with AIDS and cancer would love to hear that their problems aren't so bad after all. And I wasn't merely talking about Western society. Do the problems of non-Western people somehow not count?

 

[Chubba75]

What you know is limited to what you have seen.

I've known (personally) probably 1000 addicts in my lifetime, and seen probably 5000, I don't think that is limited.

I'm sure people with AIDS and cancer would love to hear that their problems aren't so bad after all.

Well considering a large portion of addicts (IV users particullarly) have AIDS, I think they're suffering equally. I've been HIV positive for 8 months, but don't have AIDS yet.

 

[zx13xz]

It is really odd how you always seem to dodge whatever question I pose to you.
But in response to what you said, I really don't care much about suffering people bring on themselves. Especially when they know the risks. Consider me a coldhearted bastard if you want, but I think there are enough problems in the world that if someone knowingly causes problems for themselves, they deserve what they get.

 

[Chubba75]

Consider me a coldhearted bastard if you want, but I think there are enough problems in the world that if someone knowingly causes problems for themselves, they deserve what they get.

These people didn't bring problems on themselves. The majority were homeless before they started using, a portion already had HIV/AIDS before they started using, many are plauged by mental illness. Obviously you don't know what it's like, and yes, you are a coldhearted bastard.

 

[zx13xz]

So how, exactly, did they expect that meth was a good choice to make? I mean, giving yourself more problems then you already have isn't the best idea. Meth seems to be a great tool for Darwinism. Go Meth!

 

[Chubba75]

Well if you were homeless, had a mental illness and AIDS (which means you're going to live a short life), why the hell wouldn't you use Meth? Again, you obviously don't understand.

And fuck you for being so inconsiderate to them.

Anyway, I see this going no further.