TBF: Drugs
The Perfect Drug (Nine Inch Nails)
A lit joint, a syringe full and waiting for a vein, some pills in your hand, a line on the table waiting to be snorted. We often know that we're putting stuff in our body that has no real reason to be there, so why do we do it? Are you hurting from some great pain? Peer pressure? Were you looking for that escape from what you consider an uneventful life?
I could go on and say this is wrong and that is wrong, and you're ruining your life but like I said when I first started this... I can't judge you. All I can do is simply lay out all the facts in front of you and let you be the judge.
So for my first official topic this year's The Brian Factor...
We're talking: DRUGS!!
When most drugs are created, it's usually in help save a life, to aid in curing disease, yet taking that same drug when you're absolutely healthy does damage to yourself, it alters your perception and extensive abuse can lead to either long term health problems and of course more common than not, a risk of overdosing because you get it in your head that your indestructible and thus the more you take, the better the high and that you'll come out it just fine.
Morality and Religious Beliefs
Some hold the position that consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind.
For example, the Qur'an advises against the use of 'al-khamri' (intoxicants, derived from 'khamara', to cover, i.e. substances that 'cover one's mind' or 'cloud one's judgment'), saying 'in them, there is a gross sin, and some benefits for the people. But their sinfulness far outweighs their benefit.' (2:219), and that they are 'abominations of the devil; you shall avoid them, that you may succeed.'
In Judaeo-Christianity, the Bible is famously silent on drugs that are illicit today, though makes frequent mention of wine. Isaiah 5:11-12 was a key quote of the Temperance movement: "Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no regard for the deeds of the Lord, no respect for the work of his hands".
In Scientology, drugs are viewed as a cause of spiritual damage and bodily contamination, with addiction being an obstacle to self-fulfillment. Ironic, since I normally consider Scientology not be a Religion and anyone associated with the church to be
just straight up out of their fuckin minds but "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
In secular philosophy, as drug use is largely focused on individual or group leisure, drug taking is sometimes criticized as a self-centered, non-altruistic or selfish activity, and is subject to similar moral criticism levelled at egoism and hedonism.
Many religious groups including the Uni‹o do Vegetal, Native American Church and Rastafarian use psychoactive substances as sacrament in religious rituals. In some religious practice, drugs are sometimes used as a conduit to an oceanic feeling or
divine union, equated with mysticism or entheogenic ('that which causes God to be within an individual') experiences. In others, the 'entactogenic' qualities of drugs are used to enhance feelings of empathy among congregations.
Drugs, One of Our Great Personal Freedoms?
The ever growing debate of drugs and it's usage even falls under question of our own freedoms. Many believe what people do in private should not be regulated by the government. It is argued that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, including the recreational use of drugs, we get tattoos, we we get piercings, we drink caffeine and smoke tobacco, as long as they do not harm others then they're should be no reason to doubts a person's abilities of self control. Such arguments often cite the harm principle of philosopher John Stuart Mill who urged that the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society: 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign' and 'The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. This argument was used in relation to recreational drug use by Aleister Crowley. The argument is that drug use is a victimless crime and as such the government has no right to prohibit it or punish drug consumers, much like the government does not forbid overeating, which causes significantly more deaths per year. This can be equated with the quest for freedom of thought.
How Sweet The Forbidden Fruit can be...
The war on drugs is counterproductive to the goal of discouraging drug use. The primary mechanism for this is reverse psychology. Forbidden things become fodder for rebellion, and illegal drugs have been popularized by this perception. In addition there is a great disparity of The United States's ability to enforce drug laws among those above and below the age of 18, and this causes high school aged people to become the conduit through which drugs are distributed, contravening the original "protect the children" intentions.
This argument is often summed up as the allure of the forbidden fruit, which is increased because it is forbidden. Often times I cite being fully informed and having too much of a rebellious nature as the reason I've never used drugs, I admit the temptation presented itself many times over but my over zealous rebellious side took over and since the norm was for my peers to use drugs, and I was against the norm then in turn I would choose to live clean while my peers would use and thus creating who I am today.
Possible compromises
Partial legalization of drugs, or decriminalization, might satisfy both pro and con of this issue, as well as solving many of the problems that drugs cause. In a compromise, drugs would remain illegal, but drug addicts who are non-violent and are convicted for drug possession would go to a drug rehabilitation clinic instead of prison. (Currently, treatment is available for only about 15% of the U.S.'s drug addicts. Now, some people convicted of minor drug offenses may be sentenced to rehabilitation instead of prison.) Drug addicts would then be treated as the diseased, and not treated as criminals. Possession of drugs would be an infraction rather than a felony. Drug dealers, violent drug addicts/possessors and addicts who possess a large quantity of drugs (probably for sale and not personal use) would continue to go to jail as before, as felons.
This would greatly reduce overcrowded prison populations and increase real prison time for serious criminals such as murderers. For example, a murderer who is sentenced 20 years to life, but who only serves 7 actual years due to prison overcrowding, will serve about 10 years of real time when the compromise reduces prison population. By being soft on minor criminals, penalties become harder on major criminals who commit victim crimes.
One plausible solution has been described thus: decriminalization of drugs would allow addicts to receive medical aid and free drugs from the clinic. Drug addicts would come back to the clinic regularly for the free drugs. Drug dealers would be unable to sell their drugs to addicts who get the drugs for free. The drug dealer would have to move to another country where drugs are illegal in order to sell drugs. With no dealers to catch, police can focus their limited resources on hunting down murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other serious criminals. The number of robberies would be reduced - formerly
committed by addicts who spend the stolen money on drugs. There would be fewer police deaths because there would be no shootouts between drug dealers and police. Drug pushers would not be walking around asking people if they want to buy drugs as in the Netherlands (where light drug usage is "tolerated"), because they will go to jail, as usual. Decriminalization has several central problems. Providing addicts with drugs requires additional funding, especially to distinguish recreational users from addicts. Since clinics would be supplied by corporations, this essentially constitute partial legalization. Without the clinic scenario, decriminalization may exacerbate problems. Since the vast majority of negative impact to society stems from black market culture (i.e. organized crime and dealer disputes), prohibition will gain more support. Decriminalization would not eliminate the black market culture. Some claim it may not be morally acceptable to incarcerate people for selling products that are legal to possess, or if not actually legal, only a civil offense.
Critics of partial decriminalization - who may either be on the side of prohibition or legalization - warn that the decriminalization of a soft drug (for example, cannabis) in an area may lead to increased sale of harder drugs (for example, heroin). The problems associated with illegal heroin use (fatalities, muggings, burglaries, use of infected needles) would rise in the area, possibly leading the authorities to conclude that the full legalization of cannabis would exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, in the case of cannabis decriminalization the sale of the drug would still be illegal, and revenue from it would still go into the pockets of criminals instead of the government's treasury.
My Two Cents
In the world of drugs, there is no clear cut answer, as long as it exists there is both black and white and unfortunately a lot of gray in between. It's funny how this one thing splinters into a million different areas. you can focus on one thing at a time but you can't forget about the people who use for recreation and those who use because it's what heals those who are sick, the truth is that Drugs and everything tied into them are a double edge sword. they're is no clean cut winner. Everyone's effected, from those who use, to those who create them, those who fight against it, to even those who don't use and watch it all from the sidelines.....
So what do you think???
I got my head but my head is unraveling,
Can't keep control, can't keep track of where it's traveling.
I got my heart but my heart's no good,
And you're the only one that's understood.
I come along but I don't know where you're taking me,
I shouldn't go but you're wrenching, dragging, shaking me.
Turn off the sun, pull the stars from the sky,
The more I give to you the more I die.
And I want you
And I want you
You are the perfect drug
The perfect drug
The perfect drug
You are the perfect drug
The perfect drug
The perfect drug...
You make me hard when I'm all soft inside,
I see the truth when I'm all stupid-eyed.
The arrow goes straight through my heart,
Without you everything just falls apart.
My blood wants to say hello to you
My fears want to get inside of you
My soul is so afraid to realize
How very little good is left of me
And I want you
And I want you
You are the perfect drug
The perfect drug
The perfect drug
You are the perfect drug
The perfect drug
The perfect drug....
Without you,
Without you everything falls apart.
Without you,
It's not as much fun to pick up the pieces.
Without you,
Without you everything falls apart.
Without you,
It's not as much fun to pick up the pieces....
A lit joint, a syringe full and waiting for a vein, some pills in your hand, a line on the table waiting to be snorted. We often know that we're putting stuff in our body that has no real reason to be there, so why do we do it? Are you hurting from some great pain? Peer pressure? Were you looking for that escape from what you consider an uneventful life?
I could go on and say this is wrong and that is wrong, and you're ruining your life but like I said when I first started this... I can't judge you. All I can do is simply lay out all the facts in front of you and let you be the judge.
So for my first official topic this year's The Brian Factor...
We're talking: DRUGS!!
When most drugs are created, it's usually in help save a life, to aid in curing disease, yet taking that same drug when you're absolutely healthy does damage to yourself, it alters your perception and extensive abuse can lead to either long term health problems and of course more common than not, a risk of overdosing because you get it in your head that your indestructible and thus the more you take, the better the high and that you'll come out it just fine.
Morality and Religious Beliefs
Some hold the position that consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind.
For example, the Qur'an advises against the use of 'al-khamri' (intoxicants, derived from 'khamara', to cover, i.e. substances that 'cover one's mind' or 'cloud one's judgment'), saying 'in them, there is a gross sin, and some benefits for the people. But their sinfulness far outweighs their benefit.' (2:219), and that they are 'abominations of the devil; you shall avoid them, that you may succeed.'
In Judaeo-Christianity, the Bible is famously silent on drugs that are illicit today, though makes frequent mention of wine. Isaiah 5:11-12 was a key quote of the Temperance movement: "Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no regard for the deeds of the Lord, no respect for the work of his hands".
In Scientology, drugs are viewed as a cause of spiritual damage and bodily contamination, with addiction being an obstacle to self-fulfillment. Ironic, since I normally consider Scientology not be a Religion and anyone associated with the church to be
just straight up out of their fuckin minds but "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
In secular philosophy, as drug use is largely focused on individual or group leisure, drug taking is sometimes criticized as a self-centered, non-altruistic or selfish activity, and is subject to similar moral criticism levelled at egoism and hedonism.
Many religious groups including the Uni‹o do Vegetal, Native American Church and Rastafarian use psychoactive substances as sacrament in religious rituals. In some religious practice, drugs are sometimes used as a conduit to an oceanic feeling or
divine union, equated with mysticism or entheogenic ('that which causes God to be within an individual') experiences. In others, the 'entactogenic' qualities of drugs are used to enhance feelings of empathy among congregations.
Drugs, One of Our Great Personal Freedoms?
The ever growing debate of drugs and it's usage even falls under question of our own freedoms. Many believe what people do in private should not be regulated by the government. It is argued that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, including the recreational use of drugs, we get tattoos, we we get piercings, we drink caffeine and smoke tobacco, as long as they do not harm others then they're should be no reason to doubts a person's abilities of self control. Such arguments often cite the harm principle of philosopher John Stuart Mill who urged that the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society: 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign' and 'The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. This argument was used in relation to recreational drug use by Aleister Crowley. The argument is that drug use is a victimless crime and as such the government has no right to prohibit it or punish drug consumers, much like the government does not forbid overeating, which causes significantly more deaths per year. This can be equated with the quest for freedom of thought.
How Sweet The Forbidden Fruit can be...
The war on drugs is counterproductive to the goal of discouraging drug use. The primary mechanism for this is reverse psychology. Forbidden things become fodder for rebellion, and illegal drugs have been popularized by this perception. In addition there is a great disparity of The United States's ability to enforce drug laws among those above and below the age of 18, and this causes high school aged people to become the conduit through which drugs are distributed, contravening the original "protect the children" intentions.
This argument is often summed up as the allure of the forbidden fruit, which is increased because it is forbidden. Often times I cite being fully informed and having too much of a rebellious nature as the reason I've never used drugs, I admit the temptation presented itself many times over but my over zealous rebellious side took over and since the norm was for my peers to use drugs, and I was against the norm then in turn I would choose to live clean while my peers would use and thus creating who I am today.
Possible compromises
Partial legalization of drugs, or decriminalization, might satisfy both pro and con of this issue, as well as solving many of the problems that drugs cause. In a compromise, drugs would remain illegal, but drug addicts who are non-violent and are convicted for drug possession would go to a drug rehabilitation clinic instead of prison. (Currently, treatment is available for only about 15% of the U.S.'s drug addicts. Now, some people convicted of minor drug offenses may be sentenced to rehabilitation instead of prison.) Drug addicts would then be treated as the diseased, and not treated as criminals. Possession of drugs would be an infraction rather than a felony. Drug dealers, violent drug addicts/possessors and addicts who possess a large quantity of drugs (probably for sale and not personal use) would continue to go to jail as before, as felons.
This would greatly reduce overcrowded prison populations and increase real prison time for serious criminals such as murderers. For example, a murderer who is sentenced 20 years to life, but who only serves 7 actual years due to prison overcrowding, will serve about 10 years of real time when the compromise reduces prison population. By being soft on minor criminals, penalties become harder on major criminals who commit victim crimes.
One plausible solution has been described thus: decriminalization of drugs would allow addicts to receive medical aid and free drugs from the clinic. Drug addicts would come back to the clinic regularly for the free drugs. Drug dealers would be unable to sell their drugs to addicts who get the drugs for free. The drug dealer would have to move to another country where drugs are illegal in order to sell drugs. With no dealers to catch, police can focus their limited resources on hunting down murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other serious criminals. The number of robberies would be reduced - formerly
committed by addicts who spend the stolen money on drugs. There would be fewer police deaths because there would be no shootouts between drug dealers and police. Drug pushers would not be walking around asking people if they want to buy drugs as in the Netherlands (where light drug usage is "tolerated"), because they will go to jail, as usual. Decriminalization has several central problems. Providing addicts with drugs requires additional funding, especially to distinguish recreational users from addicts. Since clinics would be supplied by corporations, this essentially constitute partial legalization. Without the clinic scenario, decriminalization may exacerbate problems. Since the vast majority of negative impact to society stems from black market culture (i.e. organized crime and dealer disputes), prohibition will gain more support. Decriminalization would not eliminate the black market culture. Some claim it may not be morally acceptable to incarcerate people for selling products that are legal to possess, or if not actually legal, only a civil offense.
Critics of partial decriminalization - who may either be on the side of prohibition or legalization - warn that the decriminalization of a soft drug (for example, cannabis) in an area may lead to increased sale of harder drugs (for example, heroin). The problems associated with illegal heroin use (fatalities, muggings, burglaries, use of infected needles) would rise in the area, possibly leading the authorities to conclude that the full legalization of cannabis would exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, in the case of cannabis decriminalization the sale of the drug would still be illegal, and revenue from it would still go into the pockets of criminals instead of the government's treasury.
My Two Cents
In the world of drugs, there is no clear cut answer, as long as it exists there is both black and white and unfortunately a lot of gray in between. It's funny how this one thing splinters into a million different areas. you can focus on one thing at a time but you can't forget about the people who use for recreation and those who use because it's what heals those who are sick, the truth is that Drugs and everything tied into them are a double edge sword. they're is no clean cut winner. Everyone's effected, from those who use, to those who create them, those who fight against it, to even those who don't use and watch it all from the sidelines.....
So what do you think???
Labels: TBF
posted by Marie at 11:49 PM
1 Comments:
Brian admitted that he was hyped up on caffeine while writing this. I berated him for hypocrisy, then for putting Scientology right up there with Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
Post a Comment
<< Home