Drugs...listen

Talk about everything but Kick Off.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Davetoast
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6568
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Cheshire, GB

Postby Davetoast » Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:45 pm

Less than a tenth of the road tax fund goes back into maintenance and development.

Smokers cost the NHS around 2.5 billion per year.

Smokers contribute more than 12 billion in tax per year.
Final Whistle Crusader and President of The FWA.
User avatar
uncle_colin
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Worcester

Re: Drugs...listen

Postby uncle_colin » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:59 pm

MJB wrote:
My friend now Doctor Paling at Bath University was kind enough to print out a small number of papers directly addressing the long term affects of smoking gear. They highlighted the main worry was the increased chance of developing mental disorders amongst those naturally already prone to developing neurotic or psychotic disorders. In my opinion such a risk is not as significant as the number of people who die from internal organ cancer from drinking alchol.


I am not debating this. The whole point that over-indulging in any drug has serious harmful effects. My point was that, in my opinion, drinking alcohol in moderation is perfectly fine, whilst smoking gear effects others around you, even when smoked in moderation.

You argue that you shouldn't have to put up with drunken bastards in the street asking you for money. This is correct.

I argued that I shouldn't have to put up with trying to talkk to someone who can't control a conversation very well. This is correct.

The difference is, the first example is a case where someone has over-indulged, because he either depends on it, or is a rugby-playing moron, the second case is an example of someone smoking a casual spliff.

I argue that even people who don't over-indulge in gear seem to come off incredibly hard to talk too, not only this, they are unaware of future effects the drug may have on them, where as people are fully ware of the risks of alcohol. This is just based on experience, sorry if I offended you, but I was not reffering to you when I used the term moron. I see you inadvertadly referred to my "E" episode, as I thought you would, but believe it or not, I'm not anti-drugs because of this episode, but like you said the reports on this drug are also inconclusive, yet........some of us, still continue to swallow large amounts at the weekend to have a good time. I realise this may sound hypocritical, as I smoke, but then that's an addiction.

At the end of the day, alcohol's a more sociable drug, and normally drank in the evenings. If they legalised dope, then they should confine it to the evenings. I have enough problems with customer call centres already, I'd hate to think what would happen if the lady I've been talking too had just gone off for a daily lunch-time spliff before she'd got on the phone, or if my lecturer was stoned whilst teaching me. Alcohol kills more, there's no argument about that, but there is no place for canabis in daily soceity.
JZ
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Drugs...listen

Postby JZ » Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:09 pm

uncle_colin wrote: I argued that I shouldn't have to put up with trying to talkk to someone who can't control a conversation very well. This is correct.


Are you for real?
User avatar
uncle_colin
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Worcester

Re: Drugs...listen

Postby uncle_colin » Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:36 pm

JZ wrote:
uncle_colin wrote: I argued that I shouldn't have to put up with trying to talkk to someone who can't control a conversation very well. This is correct.


Are you for real?


Maybe I worded this slightly wrong at the time. What I meant was that it's extremely irritating talking to someone who's stoned out of their mind.
User avatar
Davetoast
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6568
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Cheshire, GB

Postby Davetoast » Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:43 am

You've done no better the second time around. This is a ridiculous generalisation, and completely false thereby.

It is akin to saying that it is extremely tedious to watch any movie from 1987-1989. A claim which just means nothing. Firstly, there is the fact that there are a whole range of movies (individuals who use cannabis), some sharing some characteristics but none of which are the same, some of which are therefore experienced as tedious (irritating), some of which are not. Then there is the issue that it is just a matter of subjective value judgement and any subjective value judgement will be subject to the values of the judge. So your statement does not hold true as a fact. All you needed to say was that 'you find it' extremely irritating to talk to someone who's stoned, then you'd only be being bigoted on account of the gross over-generalisation. Of course you'd also likely be being untrue to yourself in saying such a thing. If you came across a stoner who was interested in something that you are also interested in, and they knew a hell of a lot more about it, you'd likely find a talk on that subject to be stimulating as opposed to irritating, in most circumstances. But you'd probably never get the chance to learn from that person because of your belief in the efficiacy of fallicious sweeping over-generalisation, and the bigotry it produces.
Final Whistle Crusader and President of The FWA.
User avatar
uncle_colin
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Worcester

Postby uncle_colin » Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:45 pm

Davetoast wrote:You've done no better the second time around. This is a ridiculous generalisation, and completely false thereby.



You've taken the statement too literally. Obviously I'm speaking from opinion and from previous experiences.

Davetoast wrote:It is akin to saying that it is extremely tedious to watch any movie from 1987-1989.


Not at all. Although there are different brands of dope, they all seem to have the desirable effect of chilling you out, but effecting yr level of concentration, and effecting conversations. I've seen this first hand in almost every user, and for me, IMO, I find it irritating for the listener. Films on the other hand are made by good/bad directors, good/bad scriptwriters. Things that have great consequences on the finished product. Dope on the other hand near enough has the same effect, despite it's different types and different users. So yr film analogy is pretty much irrelevant, and I stick by my statement that it is tedious to talk to someone who's on drugs.

Davetoast wrote: Of course you'd also likely be being untrue to yourself in saying such a thing. If you came across a stoner who was interested in something that you are also interested in, and they knew a hell of a lot more about it, you'd likely find a talk on that subject to be stimulating as opposed to irritating,


No, in fact that would irritate me even more. When I talk about something I enjoy with someone, I want the conversation to be coherent, understandable, concentrated on the main issue, sadly this isn't likely with someone who is stoned. I'm talking from my own personal experiences here you understand.
User avatar
GoodoldAmiga
Posting is free!!!
Posting is free!!!
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:18 pm
Contact:

drugz

Postby GoodoldAmiga » Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:56 pm

Heroine is good, take it everyday!
JZ
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 12:00 am
Contact:

Postby JZ » Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:26 pm

My main objection to what you said Uncle Colin, was that the fact a conversation with someone who is stoned might be irritating is a good enough reason to ban the stuff.
And in my own experience, a conversation with someone who is stoned will 99% of the time be more coherent than with someone who is drunk- and they certainly won't get physically violent.
User avatar
Pee
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6942
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Shaw, Oldham, Lancs, UK

Postby Pee » Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:33 pm

How does that The Streets song go now?
FWA OK!!

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." GB
User avatar
Pee
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6942
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Shaw, Oldham, Lancs, UK

Postby Pee » Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:35 pm

The Irony Of It All

Hello, Hello. My names Terry and I’m a law abider
There’s nothing I like more than getting fired up on beer
And when the weekends here I to exercise my right to get paralytic and fight
Good bloke fairly
But I get well leery when geezers look at me funny
Bounce ‘em round like bunnies
I’m likely to cause mischief
Good clean grief you must believe and I ain’t no thief.
Law abiding and all, all legal.
And who cares about my liver when it feels good
Wwhat you need is some real manhood.
Rasher Rasher Barney and Kasha putting peoples backs up.
Public disorder, I’ll give you public disorder.
I down eight pints and run all over the place
Spit in the face of an officer
See if that bothers you cause I never broke a law in my life
Someday I’m gonna settle down with a wife
Come on lads lets have another fight

Eh hello. My names Tim and I’m a criminal,
In the eyes of society I need to be in jail
For the choice of herbs I inhale.
This ain’t no wholesale operation
Just a few eighths and some Playstations my vocation
I pose a threat to the nation
And down the station the police hold no patients
Let’s talk space and time
I like to get deep sometimes and think about Einstein
And Carl Jung And old Kung Fu movies I like to see
Pass the hydrator please
Yeah I’m floating on thin air.
Going to Amsterdam in the New Year – top gear there
Cause I taker pride in my hobby
Home made bongs using my engineering degree
Dear Leaders, please legalise weed for these reasons.

Like I was saying to him.
I told him: “Top with me and you won’t leave.”
So I smacked him in the head and downed another Carling
Bada Bada Bing for the lad’s night.
Mad fight, his face’s a sad sight.
Vodka and Snake Bite.
Going on like a right geez, he’s a twat,
Shouldn’t have looked at me like that.
Anyway I’m an upstanding citizen
If a war came along I’d be on the front line with em.
Can’t stand crime either them hooligans on heroin.
Drugs and criminals those thugs on the penny coloured will be the downfall of society
I’ve got all the anger pent up inside of me.

You know I don’t see why I should be the criminal
How can something with no recorded fatalities be illegal
And how many deaths are there per year from alcohol
I just completed Gran Tourismo on the hardest setting
We pose no threat on my settee
Ooh the pizza’s here will someone let him in please
“We didn’t order chicken, Not a problem we’ll pick it out
I doubt they meant to mess us about
After all we’re all adults not louts.”
As I was saying, we’re friendly peaceful people
We’re not the ones out there causing trouble.
We just sit in this hazy bubble with our quarters
Discussing how beautiful Gail Porter is.
MTV, BBC 2, Channel 4 is on until six in the morning.
Then at six in the morning the sun dawns and it’s my bedtime.

Causing trouble, your stinking rabble
Boys saying I’m the lad who’s spoiling it
You’re on drugs it really bugs me when people try and tell me I’m a thug
Just for getting drunk
I like getting drunk
Cause I’m an upstanding citizen
If a war came along I’d be on the front line with em.

Now Terry you’re repeating yourself
But that’s okay drunk people can’t help that.
A chemical reaction inside your brain causes you to forget what you’re saying.

What. I know exactly what I’m saying
I’m perfectly sane
You stinking student lameo
Go get a job and stop robbing us of our taxes.

Err, well actually according to research
Government funding for further education pales in insignificance
When compared to how much they spend on repairing
Leery drunk people at the weekend
In casualty wards all over the land.

Why you cheeky little swine come here
I’m gonna batter you. Come here.
FWA OK!!



"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." GB
User avatar
Davetoast
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6568
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Cheshire, GB

Postby Davetoast » Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:59 pm

DT: You've done no better the second time around. This is a ridiculous generalisation, and completely false thereby.

UC: You've taken the statement too literally.

Here's the the statement again:
"it's extremely irritating talking to someone who's stoned out of their mind."

Could you explain to me how I can take such a statement too literally?

A statement either conveys what it's supposed to convey. or it doesn't. If it doesn't convey what it's supposed to convey, then it is not the fault of the reader who misinterprets the intended meaning on account of the incorrect phraseology. Rather it is the author who is at fault for not conveying the intended meaning correctly.


UC: Obviously I'm speaking from opinion and from previous experiences.

Yes, obviously, what else could you speak from if you were attempting to be truthful.

Here's a few questions to ask yourself. Has experience yet taught you that experience is not the be all and end all of knowledge? Has experience yet taught you that personal experience is very limited in the grand scheme of things? Has experience yet taught you that as you grow and experience more, you often realise that what experience had previously informed your opinion was in fact wrong - IOW that you thought you knew it all back then, but now you can see that you didn't? Has experience yet taught you to therefore examine your current conception of what you think you know, and what you might actually know, in light of the fallibility of experience, and most especially a very limited experience? Has experience yet taught you to ask yourself questions like these and pay very close attention to the answers that you will inevitably come to?

Now, here's the thing. If you are speaking from personal experience and opinion, rather than stating a fact, why then do you state it as a fact, rather than an opinion? And why, in light of this being previously pointed out to you, do you persist with it and say that you still stand by your statement? If I were like you, I suppose I would be getting extremely irritated right now, being as you're not controlling this conversation very well. And you're not even stoned, whereas I am. Who would've thunk it.

So ok, you need to learn the difference between the phrasing of a fact and the phrasing of an opinion. But fair enough, you are merely stating an opinion, based on your experiences (which you don't seem to analyse and review too systematically, but I digress), so to the next point. Your opinion is that it is extremely irritating to talk to someone who is stoned (I can see what you mean right now, but this isn't irritating for you in the way you meant it). You hold this opinion because, in your experience, people who are stoned can't control a conversation very well. You admit that this piece of conversation you offer wasn't worded very well (perhaps you need a beer) but what you are trying to say is that you find stoned people irritating because they are unable to keep their mind on the conversations you've had with them in your experience, and perhaps they are therefore unable to be coherent enough to live up to your high standards and sharp mind, becaue you of course are always concentrated, and coherent. Not only that but also this lack of concentration must be because of the pot because whatever you are talking about is interesting and therefore demands concentration.

Question(s) 1: Do you realise who that extreme irritation belongs to? I mean you are talking like it is their fault that you are irritated, as though you have no control. Do you think they are irritated by their own incoherence? Do you think they are irritated by your coherence? Do you think they are irritated by your irritation? Do you think that if you had a few more beers, you would be more irritated? Do you think that if you had a smoke you would be less irritated?

Question(s) 2: Do you realise that by negatively characterising a whole disparate population who happen to share a commonality, a commonality that in practice has nothing to do with the negative characterisation, you are being a bigot? Now society deems various forms of bigotry to be more or less harmful than others. PC currently dictates that racism or sexism, for example, is a bad form of bigotry. However others are passed by without even a raise of the eyebrows, partizanship against another country or religion, for example. I don't want to debate the irrationality and incorrectness of the above situation because it is self-evident, but I want to make the point that it is the same principle underlying them all, i.e. false characterisation based on their simply belonging to a certain group. One who makes such false characterisations is a bigot. That bigotry is born out of one's prejudice - pre-judice, judgementalism, judgementalism based on one fact alone, that the subject belongs to a certain group.

Y'know there used to be a person around here who constantly engaged in this false characterisation of certain various groups based on his experience of a very limited number of their population, and he thought he was completely right to do so. His ideas were no less ill-concieved than yours, but because they were so anti-PC, he offended too many and he had to go.

Question(s) 3: Are you really all that? Are you really Mr. together, always concentrated and alert to all around you? Might you have other things going on inside your head whilst you are conversing with someone, miss what they were saying, and just pretend that you couldn't hear them as opposed to your not concentrating on the riveting conversation? Are you really such a great conversationalist that you deserve, even demand the full attention of your co-conversationalists? Can you imagine that they might actually have something more interesting and worthwhile than what you might be saying going on in their heads? When you drink, do you become more coherent? Are you really the coherent one? Are you... like... y'know... Mr... co-thingy......... whatever? (most of that seems to qualify as coherent thesedays, especially down at the pub, the breeding ground of great minds. Praps I shud rite in txt stuf 2 b betr undrstud)


DT: It is akin to saying that it is extremely tedious to watch any movie from 1987-1989.

UC: Not at all.

Sorry, I thought the point I was making was completely obvious, something that most coherent people would understand immediately, that is that false characterisation is false characterisation, even if it's based on an erudite generalisation, never mind a gross one. With that which I've written on the subject above, and below, do you now understand the point I'm making here?


UC: Although there are different brands of dope, they all seem to have the desirable effect of chilling you out,

'Kay. Desirable, right. Of course you realise that this is by no means always the case.


UC: but effecting yr level of concentration, and effecting conversations.

Now that I've made sense of that incoherence, I read it as 'but it has undesirable negative effects on your concentration which effects the coherence of conversation', is that what you meant?

I won't bother with the validity of your judgement of desirability/undesirability, but.

This is the very point I'm making, some people's concentration is negatively effected by it, others' is actually enhanced by it (ever beaten Martin at KO when he's stoned?), still others' concentration is hardly effected by it at all. Some of the people who's concentration is negatively effected by it are still more coherent and concentrated than many people's normal levels of coherence and concentration. This is why you falsely characterise this whole group based on only having met a small proportion of them, and only having tested your hypothesis on a still smaller proportion.


UC: I've seen this first hand in almost every user, and for me, IMO, I find it irritating for the listener.

I'm glad to see you are now phrasing it correctly, though there's no need to repeat yourself in saying "and for me, IMO", and I'm not sure how you can find it 'irritating for a listener', but regardless. Can you now see that your experience in this matter might not represent the whole truth of the matter? Are you experiencing enough contradictory evidence here to perhaps call your opinion into question? Especially being as I'm stoned and you're....not pissed? Imagine if you were.


UC: Films on the other hand are made by good/bad directors, good/bad scriptwriters. Things that have great consequences on the finished product.

Yes indeed, you make my point for me. People who smoke dope might have a good mind, or a bad one. They might have good concentration skills, or not. They might be generally coherent with their speech, they might not. They might have a fair tolerance for gear, they might not. They might have a fair tolerance for boring conversation, they might not.


UC: Dope on the other hand near enough has the same effect, despite it's different types and different users.

I think, with more experience, perhaps such as this, you will have to revise that opinion. If you knew anything in detail about pot, you'd know that the different varieties can have profoundly different effects. I think I've already dealt with the different users issue.


UC: So yr film analogy is pretty much irrelevant,

Nope, it's not irrelevant at all, rather you have not understood it, therefore judge it to be irrelevant, and then state that opinion as fact. Perhaps you need to develop your comprehension skills, think a little more, a little deeper, not be so quick to come to snap judgements based on little true consideration.


UC: and I stick by my statement that it is tedious to talk to someone who's on drugs.

I guess you mean cannabis. This is becoming rather repetitive, almost tedious.


DT: Of course you'd also likely be being untrue to yourself in saying such a thing. If you came across a stoner who was interested in something that you are also interested in, and they knew a hell of a lot more about it, you'd likely find a talk on that subject to be stimulating as opposed to irritating,

UC: No, in fact that would irritate me even more. When I talk about something I enjoy with someone, I want the conversation to be coherent, understandable, concentrated on the main issue,

But when you talk to somebody about something you're not interested in, you don't care, or at least are less irritated, if the conversation is incoherent? This sounds like the likely opinion of some of stoners you've met.

But no, I do too, and yet I don't generally encounter the problems you describe, in my circle. Perhaps you mix with the wrong type of person in general for such a pursuit, and therefore the generally wrong type of stoner. Perhaps your experience is simply not yet wide enough for you to make such a judgement. I can assure you that if I was stoned, and talking to you about movies, the conversation, at least for my part, would be coherent, understandable to those able to understand, and concentrated on the main issues; most especially if I received the same, which I rarely do with most any people, which kind of makes a farce of your assertions, in my experience.


UC: sadly this isn't likely with someone who is stoned. I'm talking from my own personal experiences here you understand.

I understand, do you?
Final Whistle Crusader and President of The FWA.
JZ
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 12:00 am
Contact:

Postby JZ » Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:43 pm

:D Superb post Dave, you pretty much said what I couldn't be arsed to
User avatar
Tripod
2000+ Poster!
2000+ Poster!
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Postby Tripod » Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:15 am

Dave, man, you gotta let me in on this post-enhancing substance you at times take, seems to work wonders! :D

Although you are verbally bullying Uncle Colin here, I back you up 100% on the issue. And I'm also with JZ's point of course - I can't see a pettier reason than that to ban dope. Heck, we should ban stuff that really makes the population dumb and numb like The Sun or fashionable TV shows called Pop Idol or I'm a celebrity.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests