It’s been a while since we had a good social commentary.
Patty sent me this article recently: Many People Use Drugs – But Here’s Why Most Don’t Become Addicts
He also sent it to Wendy and Reto, titled: “Clyde vs Crotch Debate”
You can imagine what ensued… approximately a dozen emails back and forth with both parties switching sides at random in order to keep their opponent on their toes.
Priceless.
Take a minute, and read the article.
My favourite quote:
“It does happen. But the atypical experience of the relatively small number of drug users from stable backgrounds who stumble into addiction and can legitimately attribute the chaos of their subsequent lives to this one event drowns out the experience of the overwhelming majority of addicts for whom social isolation, economic exclusion, criminality and fragile mental health preceded their drug use rather than being caused by it.”
To start the creative juices flowing:
Clyde: “With all due respect to my colleague’s moral and non-reprehensible sensibilities, I declare that all drugs should be available without limitation to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and Tom, Dick, and Harry’s kids. It is their responsibility to ensure they are neither socially isolated, economically excluded, criminally nor mentally fragile and that their opioid receptors will not attach to morphine molecules. The citizens do not need the government to tell us what substances we can and cannot try. Those laws that you claim have “protected” us for over a century, I would argue, have done nothing but shelter us from awesome psychedelic and hallucinogenic experiences that would have enhanced our lives rather than destroyed them. We want the FREEDOM to decide how and when we deteriorate our own brains’ white matter!”
Crotch: “Is my esteemed colleague trying to justify some feeble case for relaxing existing laws on access to dangerous and life altering intoxicants? Just because most mentally fit people don’t become addicted, that’s no reason to suddenly start handing out free crack cocaine to every 12 year old standing on a street corner! These laws have served to protect our children and families for the better part of a century. One poorly written junk science article is certainly no justification for suggesting such a sweeping change to our safe and just society. Frankly, I find this irresponsible and seditious suggestion to be seriously reprehensible!”
I invite you all to join in the comments.
Freedom vs Responsibility
Drug Use vs Addiction
Discuss…
Wednesday: 15 minutes
15 banded good mornings
20/20 lateral step ups
15 Russian KB swings
15 Goblet squats
20/20 banded hamstring pull-downs
Strength: 15 minutes: (same weight as Monday)
Front Squat – 4 x 5
OR
Push Press – 4 x 5
Accessory: 20 minutes
A). Superset:
GH raises 5×5 (or Glute Bridges with weight)
Choose: Muscle-ups OR Ring Dips OR Strict Pull-ups 5×3-5 reps
B). 50 Burpee Pull-ups for time (10 minute time Cap)
That was a good read Robert. I want to see photos from this rat city study... I wonder if they have pictures of rats wandering around with cocaine psychosis mixing in with the good drug free rats?
Win for Clyde?? Man, why do I always have to play the bad guy?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html
Patty forgot that the Free Radicals (crotch, clyde, bus, chest) are a unionized and united entity for which even the most polarizing issues cannot and will not divide. Our "debate" was a ruse. But, since you all picked me, i'll call this debate a WIN for Clyde! :)
My question is how can I achieve peak physical condition without periodic drug use? It's all about stress and adaptation.
Baby Nat, I am not sure that I implied full-fledged legalization or not regulating, all of the examples of decriminalization that I used have regulation involved. For something like marijuana, I could see something like how alcohol is regulated or like current medical marijuana is dispensed. Harder stuff, like heroin, I would prefer that it be done by prescription or something - where the user has more contact with the medical community/drug counsellors on a regular bases.
Thumbs up to Robert. But the thing is, you legalize AND regulate - just like with alcohol.
That's still government intervention, but it's appropriate.
It is a medical issue, not a legal one. Prohibition has not stopped anyone from doing drugs. In fact, it may increase drug use - I recently read a study saying that in the states that recently decriminalized drugs, drug use is down. If organized crime can't make money on drugs, they won't push drugs - less marketing, less use. Prison does not stop drug use. Drugs still get into prison. Prisons cost a huge amount of money to operate and the productivity of casual drug users that get caught gets taken away from society plus families get destroyed, etc. all for an activity that, generally (depending on the drug and the situation), in and of itself has not hurt anyone but possibly the person doing the drug. Not to mention the money the government could be collecting instead of organized crime. With drugs not being the focus, law enforcement could focus on more important things like, in my opinion, human trafficking. I think we should stop legislating what people can do to their own bodies and focus on treatment. Plus, we need a different solution for mental illness. In the 90's many people with mental illness were thrown onto the street and left to fend for themselves. We really don't have a good solution for this because the government doesn't want to spend money on it. Read articles about decriminalization in Portugal. It has been a success (fewer death, fewer cases of HIV from drug use). What do you expect? Could any solution be worse than the one we use now?
Reto is basically my rep in the comments section most of the time.
#kindredspirit
(As long as by "restrict access" he does not mean "prohibit entirely")
I'm philosophically okay with many things that I'm not interested in doing.
If you didn't catch it, the "debate" with Clyde above was a bit tongue in cheek - trying out my tough-on-crime conservative alter-ego Reto Colbert.
My real stance on this is somewhere in the middle - current laws definitely go too far, and I think a majority agrees with this. Throwing youth in jail because they're black and have a joint in their pocket just doesn't make sense. But I think there is a role for good government to step in and restrict access - many drugs are still pretty dangerous, especially when coupled with mental illness or other disadvantages, and government does have a role in protecting certain portions of the population from themselves for the greater good. Nobody needs the freedom to be shooting heroin.
A highly recommended book that examines/discusses this very issue is In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts (http://drgabormate.com/book/in-the-realm-of-hungry-ghosts/ ) by my longtime academic "crush," Gabor Mate.
I agree Afghan. I used to be the brainwashed, 'all drugs are so addictive that you will ruin your life' type of person. Growing up in a small (Mormon) town can do that to you... and having a family with addictive tendencies toward alcohol and food. Point is, anything can be bad for you if you don't have a support network and a strong sense of self to ground you. Safe experiences can be amazing ones. Epiphany, euphoria, connection, enlightenment... these can all come from a workout, travel, inspiring people, and of course from pharmaceutical enhancement.
(sounds like you're ok with crack though Afghan, as long as one earns it and pays for it honestly)
;)
Their debate has nothing on the elevated rhetoric in this: http://digg.com/video/2-chainz-nancy-grace-marijuana
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!
(Also, I'm with Clyde, if only for the fact that prohibition prevents a lot of people from getting much-needed health care treatment. And also, I want the taxes to pay for the burgeoning welfare state I'm naively still hoping for.)
I'm going to side with Clyde on this one! I don't want anyone handing anyone's children free crack on the street, but if said person (let's say person instead of child and do away with the rhetoric of appropriate age) wants to get a job and save up money for an experience they would like to have, who is anyone to say that a little weed and some uppers (or in the case of my adolescence a little weed and a little acid) is any more dangerous than say skiing, mountain biking, or learning to drive? It could even be seen as empowering: get a job and earn some money, choose experience you'd like to have, pay for it, experience it, reflect on it, choose next experience.
Drugs are bad.... Er mm except when they're good. And always say thank you when offered free drugs, they are expensive!