The confessions of a forum addicit

On the other hand, Marble, the counter-argument to that is that, far from disengaging society, communication has galvanized it as never before. Think of the Arab Spring/Summer/Winter, continuing to battle valiantly against an assortment of outdated tyrants. And how do we know all this? Because, more than anything, of the use of mobile phones with cameras, taking filmed information (what a fantastic communicator!) and then putting up instant images via the Internet (ditto). No words are even needed when we see what tens of thousands of people are prepared to do in order to try to win basic human rights in their countries.

Also, how would we ever understand the ferocity and the grief inherent in the tsunami which swept away tens of thousands in Thailand and well beyond, and the next one off the coast of Japan? Without the world of instant communication, we'd have relied on newspapers, at best, as we did not so long ago - certainly well within my lifetime, and getting some grainy b&w pix days or weeks later, when people could get to the sites.

And other human disasters like wars and famine, genocide and all the usual horrors we inflict on each other. There really is less and less of a hiding place for tyrants and brutes, as their actions are exposed not within weeks or even days, but as they happen, or very shortly afterwards.

On a happier note, YouTube is filled with the more idiotic side of human life as well as how it's lived at its happiest and most joyful.

We don't actually need to become information processing devices, because we already are, and always have been. If you think about the schooling process, you are from your first day at nursery being stuffed with information, from learning your first ABC to taking a uni degree. Your brain tunes you in to gaining life experiences along the way, keeping what you deem to be useful and usually discarding what isn't. When you take a job, you learn how to do it and you continue learning throughout most of your life on how to adjust and adapt to changing circumstances - having a baby and bringing it up to adulthood, for example. We are, individually and societally, information processors, but supported by technical devices which will bring us as many stimuli as we choose to engage with - personally, a phone and email and the Internet provide me (beyond personal experiences) with about as much information as I want to ingest!
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with any of what you say there, some excellent points. The brain in itself an 'information processing device', which is why I used that term. However, all I would add is that when people use technolgy to film others being beaten up by their friends, well it's certainly not something that my mind would take me to do. We should all be obsessed with each other and how we're all doing, not always the latest pieces of equipment and/or technology as society seems to going.

I actually had a mate a while back that took great pleasure in imposing a video he had taken, showing an ex-girlfriend giving him oral sex on me, and it is this type of thing where I think technology, and how people minds have used it that have taken a turn for the worst.

Nout wrong with a bit of legal midget porn though it has to be said.:)
 
Last edited:
How much does he want for the blow job vid, Marble? Tell you what, let's go 40/60 on the proceeds!

Ah, I getcha. Of course, yes, there can be a horrible misuse of equipment, such as filming the sexual predation of young children for commercial gain. Personally, I've got no problem of people filming each other's bedroom antics for their own enjoyment - or even their friends if they want to see it - and I don't actually have a problem with adult porn, either, as it's all done for money by people who can get in and out of the business as they wish. (I do have a huge problem accepting a sex trade of any sort where it's not consensual, of course.)

I can see you think there's a chance we're going to be bowing down before the god of technology at this rate, but look at the Luddites, breaking up automated spinning, milling, and printing machines. They realised there'd be job losses if the machines kept going, but there was also the feeling that anything not done manually was somehow ungodly, because little effort had been put into it.

It all goes to context, doesn't it? Should we not build bridges because suicidal people jump off them? Should we stop rail travel because sometimes the trains crash and people get killed? There's always a downside to any endeavour - fortunately, there are millions more safe bridge crossings and railway journeys than there are disasters. I think we need to see evolving technology a bit like that - overall, it's for good. It enables us to stay in touch with people who might be very lonely without making the effort of flying halfway round the world to see them. We can Skype Auntie Sheila in Brisbane or Uncle Sam in Thailand, staying in touch with people who, just a few years ago, would just get a Christmas card or the occasional letter.

If we look on communications technology as providing us with more good than bad - and know that we ourselves aren't going to use it for evil purposes - then I welcome it, even though I still can't text numbers!!
 
Is Ruthless Reviews a bit like Rotten Tomatoes, Euro? I've checked that one out a few times - harsh, but usually fair!
 
Yes the goods do seem to outweigh the bads, i agree. Always worth creating debates on the subject, as for such an enormous topic it would be pretty dull if we only heard one point of view. In the nineties people were concerned about hollywood and the affect some 'action' films had on young people. And given the graphic nature of some of them i think they had every right to be. The same could be said of violence orientated video games in the 21st century, and evidence has shown these caused chemical brain changes in people making them more violent: but as you rightly say, it doesn't seem right to prohibit these things based on a miority, though sometimes it only takes a minority to cause resement of whatever it is thats the issue. Re-hardcore porn, i take the same position you. I actually think based on the evidece presented by the experts we should decriminalise cannabis, and i usually take a more libertarian (i think thats the right political phillosophy for this view) approach to these issues.
 
The mass advertising on telle of gambling that was santioned by last government i think was a step too far it has to be said, and will lead to an influx of problem gamblers in years to come.
 
I'd definitely decrim weed and, quite honestly, I'd like to see a rather different approach to drug-taking. We know that there are many tens of thousands of people dependent on prescribed drugs, to either keep them alive, modify their behaviour, help them to be pain-free, or mobile. These are the 'legal' drugs, yet many kick in some awful side effects and do other forms of damage to their legitimate users. The more powerful they are, the more likely they are to get some serious side effects, some of which then need other drugs to keep them modified.

Why, then, make coke illegal? It's no worse than a strong prescriptive pellet and yet it's demonised as 'bad for you'. I'd like to see it available for a small, very affordable fee, thus knocking out the murderous producers and dealers, reducing the overall crime stats caused by some out-of-control users stealing to pay for their wraps, and at the same time making it about as glamorous to use as Exlax. It would mean that it would also be a clean drug, too, not full of crap as some stuff is.

As for heroin, that's just an opiate taken in a very much stronger version than, say, any number of the anti-depressants and mood-changing prescriptives which are based on an opium derivative. So, again, let's think of dependent users more as patients, not hapless junkies, and treat them with regular amounts, the same way as we treat 'legal' patients with regular amounts of strong drugs. Like coke, it's not as if we don't use the core product in prescription drugs - it's just the strength and the availability (and often the quality) that are the problems.

I don't see any point in the so-called 'war on drugs' when, for example, many of the Mexican cartels have provided a much better standard of living (and jobs galore) for rural populations in what is still a developing country. With the proceeds of their business, they've built schools, hospitals, roadways, all sorts of infrastructures which the locals would never have got from their corrupted officials. Why, then, make their product illegal? Bring it into the fold, un-demonize the users, treat them as you would chronically ill or diseased patients and look after them. They might eventually want to get weaned off the stuff but, if they don't, their lives would at least not revolve around the hardship, squalor, and violence connected with the drug's use.

As for the cartels, it'd be a case of 'get with the programme' - their employees would be paid a fair wage to maintain production and the governments of the producing countries, instead of wasting time and lives on trying to stop the production, would simply offer them contracts to continuing to supply. The cartels could still make money and build schools if they wanted to, but they'd be businessmen, on a par with the big pharmaceutical companies which dominate the health landscape. If they failed to provide a clean product, the govt. would then cancel the contract and the cartel would go out of business, since the govt. would just get the product from another cartel. It would make for competitive pricing and fair trade ethics - not something we currently associate with coca and opium (yet), but do with all kinds of alcohol making and tobacco growing. People are always going to want to alter their moods with something, so it might as well all be legal, available, and having some knock-on good effects.

I don't like to say it's a deliberate conspiracy, but 'fighting the war on drugs' is just another excuse to prop up a very lucrative military force and to appear to be doing something to appease popular opinion of the trade. That's just plain daft. You immediately announce that coke and H will now be available through a prescriptive service, all 'treatment' will be confidential, and that users - far from being made to feel that they're looked down upon and despised - are looked after in the same way as the thousands of patients visiting hospitals all the time for diseases brought on by chronic habits like smoking and drinking too much.

Jeez - I'm worn out with that lot! Good to chuck out whatever thoughts we have on stuff, though, Marble. It keeps us thinking about what's going on, whether it could be better, and how we might be able to change things.
 
Last edited:
And I do have two friends, now in their sixties, whose sons have stolen them blind - one, to fund his drugs habit (now clean for six months), the other to fund his gambling (over £100,000 leeched off Mum to pay his debts), so while I'm very happy not to be connected directly to someone with a debilitating habit, I do know what they can do. There again, I have a neighbour who's been drinking and smoking herself to death for years, becoming housebound and totally dependent on everyone and anyone else to do everything for her - she's nearly 70 now - so it's not as if dependency problems are the property of just the young. There's no doubt the booze and fags will kill this woman - she's just taking a lot longer to do it than a quick o.d.
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
Is Ruthless Reviews a bit like Rotten Tomatoes, Euro? I've checked that one out a few times - harsh, but usually fair!
Click to expand...

The movie aspect of RR is similar, but it's far more than just a film site. Sport, music, games and even cooking have big sub-forums and the debate on there is first class. Sure it can be juvenile a lot of the time and the only thing it misses is a core of intelligent female posters - but I've been introduced to many films and records as a regular poster. The site even has a musician or two posting and a high up bod from ESPN (anonymous naturally).
 
Its complete rubbish to say that the war on drugs is nothing but an excuse to prop up a military machine. The resources used must be a tiny fraction of the budget and had no requirement for particular technological development

Thats just paranoid stuff off vile Ron Paul type websites

coke and heroin will fuck up lives if freely available and endorsed (which legalisation is). A coke addiction is disasterous and breaks lives as well as stopping a full functioning life. its not the availability thats the issue but the lifestyle consequences. to dismiss it as little more than a strong percription pellet is mad. Most do not get addicted but a high proportion do. Heroin is even worse

There can be the same arguments about alchol and fags but drink is addictive to only a small minority (sadly for them ) and fags do not change behaviour in a drastic way.

i am on balance ok about weed though
 
Last edited:
krizon thanks for that posting. Usually all people who have actually looked in depth at the issue, (and they are a minority in the i think), state roughly the same argument. Unfortunately they are beaten down with the one liner 'drugs ruin lives' etc. I've never denied drugs can sometimes ruin lives, but without adding that this has all happend and got worse under the 'war on drugs' we, (or they) are simply decieving themselves. It is a political argument that should be being debated at the highest levels, but is it? Didn't branson and co. recently do a report, stating what you have said? Unsurprisingly it didn't get much attention in the press, left up to blogs on the internet to provide some commentary. Does anyone really believe people who've never liked cannabis are going to start purely because theres a cafe down the road selling it? I don't think so. Anyway the government run the country not us, we have to live and let live!
 
Last edited:
That first line is incredibly patronising Marble. Not like u... Perhaps talk to some people who have fought off addiction (and it addiction isnt "sometimes" with heroin or even coke) and ask them what they think?

i think its fair to say they have an in depth knowledge of the issue
 
Last edited:
Well, i find the whole anti-cannabis argument immensly patronising, so perhaps this is making my views patronising. I should add, i am referring to the pro.nutts and co who have been linked with studies on cannabis. I find the arguments about coke and heroin worth listening to,but i agree with you in the sense that legalising everything would be too much and will never realistically happen. If in 5 or 10 years time they tryed it with cannabis then i would reserve judgement on the other drugs until i could see the results of that. Coke and heroin policy has not worked either it has to be said, krizm is right to point that out. I actually had a bad time puffing skunk myself a few years ago, but that was down to me being a stupid and irresponsible teenager. Thankfully i think there is more awareness about the strong forms of skunk these days. People always need to know their limits. That rule applies to every potentially addictive behaviour.
 
Clivex, I don't know this paranoid conspiracist you seem to quote a lot, but as you will see from what I wrote, I didn't say there was a military conspiracy in the war against drugs - although I'm well aware that a lot of people think that there is. I do, though, think that the billions which have gone into this futile endeavour, let alone the loss of life among anti-drug enforcement personnel, and the continuing success of the many cartels, proves that it's a busted flush. I think the money could be much better spent as I've outlined.

I have a male friend, now just about hitting 50, who's smoked weed daily since he was 15, when he ran away from home to a squat. He's grown his own for years and, while he also enjoys a few strong beers now and then, has never been near coke or heroin, and most definitely looks upon himself as no more addicted than someone who doesn't enjoy a day without regular nicotine or caffeine.

I also had another friend who rescued his boyfriend from heroin overdoses on at least three occasions. The boyfriend had been ruined from the sweet age of five by being sent into the tender care of the infamous Welsh homes for children, where he and one of his other brothers were regularly sodomised by the caring management. That's one reason I can never judge drug addicts - some are blanking out a 'real' life which was too horrendous to recount or remember. The boyfriend later got off the stuff and became a drugs counsellor, only to take one hit after being clean for years. It killed him, probably because he'd forgotten to downsize from the quantity his system had once been accustomed to. The 'war on drugs' passed him by - he could get anything he wanted, any time, but fought valiantly against the desire to blot out his dreadful childhood as strongly as possible.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if legalisation would have made any difference, but I do know of 2 people whose lives have been ruined by smoking cannabis, so my ex hippie attitiude to the stuff has changed a lot. And the problem with coke is that it changes the personality of the person taking it; it isn't just about the lying and stealing to get the stuff, but the fact that they lose all sense of remorse for what they've done due to taking it.
 
Don't disagree with the downside to some people's reaction to drugs when they become addicts, Moe - just like alcoholics (versus those who just like a few drinks now and then), who will deceive night and day to cover their tracks. My mother recounted, many years ago, how a manager had come into her office about ten one morning and asked her if she'd got any gin. She was quite bemused and said no, of course not. He bundled off out and left the office at 11.30, when a bar across the road opened up. His wife told my mother one day that she was 'lucky to get an egg into him' on some days. His addiction to alchohol ruined family life in the end, as the desperation to keep drinking dug in deeper. Overall, though, I don't personally know any drug-addled people (although I know at least one who'd be more balanced on prescriptive ones!), but I've met and known an awful lot of alkies, all relentlessly ruining their health, their wealth, and the quality of the life of so many around them.

In other words, an obsessive addiction to any habit is rarely life-enhancing. But the tens of thousands of alcohol-obsessed patients visiting hospitals and clinics every year totally outweigh the smaller number attending drug rehab programmes, while the alcohol-related illnesses are not demonized for being caused by an illegal activity. We sure aren't going back to Prohibition, so for me the answer is to stop pretending that the addiction to nicotine, alcohol, or gambling is somehow 'soft' and the coke and heroin is 'hard'. Smokers and alcohol abusers will ruin their hearts, lungs and livers, incurring long-term and costly disabilities, so why shouldn't the 'hard' drugs be decrimmed to range alongside the pernicious 'soft' habits. There's no good outcome for overdoing any of them long term, while there's not much harm in their recreational 'light' use, so why not treat them the same? It's like doing three lines of coke at a weekend party or two or three fags a day versus getting into a daily need for either drug. If people keep their habits to light, fun, recreational use - as against liver-killing binge drinking and toxifying the system with a mix of booze and assorted drugs like Amy Winehouse et al - then I honestly, really, don't see the diff between the odd snort versus a couple of doubles of Jim Beam.
 
Some interesting points Krizon.I don't see any benefit to society from legalising cocaine but from what I can see the British/Irish way of using cocaine allows you to down a copious amount of alcohol.Maybe a restrained line or two would be the way to go but we live in a society where it's all about getting completely hammered.
 
:lol::lol: Yup - I'm afraid that's the sad thing about our use of alcohol. We seem (as in, some large portions of society) to either use it to excess into full-blown alcoholism, or to see it as a way to get off our heads. Very little sense of people just enjoying the stuff at home with friends and just easing some of the stresses and strains of life. We just haven't incorporated into our everyday life from an early age, like the French and Italians in particular, where young kids are given a half-glass of diluted wine with their main meals, to prepare them for enjoying it more fully as an adult.

The more alcohol can be accommodated into a normal family routine, rather than being its curse, the better. I think it's timely to include school lessons on the consumption of it as a pleasant accompaniment to meals, to enhance social occasions, and so on, but not just a vehicle for getting bladdered. Hmm, don't somehow see it happening, but more's the pity!
 
I was off the drink for the vast majority of the year but on Christmas eve I decided I would have one or two every night to relax and get into the holiday mood.It worked out very well -the holidays can be hard enough work with kids.Having said that after the holidays are over I might stay away from drink for the next 12 months.
 
I am of a certain age and have drunk shiteloads of beer in my life and will continue to do so as long as I can, and the the point you are missing here is that when people mix drugs with alcohol that is when it becomes a problem.
You can manage to talk with a drunk and persuade him that it might not be a good idea to try and separate you from your wallet, but when ANY drugs including hashish, shit, or whatever you want to call it is mixed with alcohol you get people who think they are invincible.
 
I try to avoid drunks as much as I can. A&E is full of them who have thought that they were invincible in punch-ups, driving a car, climbing into a second-storey window and all that crap. Walsy, I guess you've never smoked much weed, then? I can assure you there is absolutely no sense of invincibility involved - the whole purpose is to relax and chill out, not become the sort of aggressive Rottweiler that so many drunks turn into. And never try telling drinkers they've had enough - they will turn on you in a flash. The odd thing about the folks I know who do hash is that the most they'll drink is beer, after which they generally go through the talkative phase and then snore off.

I hate drunks, in fact, because they can ruin a nice party, a pleasant evening out, just walking down the street. They piss everywhere, hurl their vomit anywhere, shriek obscenities at anyone, and lose all control of the last shreds of their self-respect. The least obnoxious (and not by much) are those who shout happily, sing loudly in the street at 3.00 a.m., or try to grope you at parties. None of it's edifying behaviour, and some of it is life-threateningly stupid. And then they try to excuse their crappy actions by saying they don't remember any of it - which shows what sort of effect the 'drug' of alcohol has on people.
 
Last edited:
You tell me, Walsworth, as it seems to be a point you're keen to make. I'm assuming you have the stats to hand, although this notion goes against all evidence of hash making people aggressive. It's an opiate, not a stimulant. If someone takes a highly stimulating drug and in fair quantities, its effect can be exacerbated by the concurrent use of alcohol - or vice versa.

Logically, then, you should also ban alcohol, as it's 50% of the problem in altering people's states of mind. Look, there are millions of drug users all round the world, from the ghat leaf chewers of Pakistan, to Chinese opium smokers, to the ancient practices among indigenous tribes of smoking or eating mind-altering substances. Drug use has been around since time immemorial, when shamans and seers would use them to put them into trances so that the spirits could talk to them. Peyote/magic mushrooms, dried and smoked poisonous plants like datura, hash, ghat, coca, heroin - they've been around forever, along with other ingestations I can't remember offhand. We've become obsessed with deciding all of this is wrong, unless those quaint natives are filmed off their heads for a BBC travel programme, rather than accepting their use as part of everyday life (which it is), just as the choice to drink/not drink, gamble/not gamble, eat/overeat, are also everyday habits.

The nonsense about drug-taking is that loads of prescriptive medications are based on the very plants that our governments would have us believe are harmful to our health - nicotine, caffeine, and the opiate family. So, it's all right to give severely disturbed and disruptive children/people strong whacks of a sedative based on an opiate derivative, but it's not okay to let a currently illegal one be used, even though its effect will be the same or very similar? I don't see the logic behind that.

You won't stop people mixing alcohol and drugs any more than you'll stop people drink-driving, unless you ban vehicles. Humans will always find a way to get what they want - if you banned alcohol, they'd run home stills as we did in Saudi, brew their own beer, and ferment their own wine in the garden shed. As for how many obnoxious people - as against perfectly pleasant ones - mix drugs 'n' booze, you seem to have a clue, so let's have the figures. I imagine they're available from some government health website.
 
Back
Top