Drug Users' Pride

[Guest grandad]

in my youth I was guided away from drugs, eventually I was talked into it, I choose not to but I gave in, I have never looked back, the best moment in my life.

[PaulHackett]

I'm not so sure about the majority doing it Sam, I know solicitors who take drugs, doctors, teachers and many other respectable professional people take drugs, but the majority?

And you would never get those professionals marching with banners saying it's our right to take drugs because we love it, for obvious reasons.

It would end up with the usual suspects being slagged off by the media giving the authorities more ammo to say our anti-drug laws are working.

[Guest grandad]

including alcohol it is the majority, but alcohol has lead to ruin for millions, sometimes choice needs to be worked on, like choosing not to take drugs or drink alcohol. I choose to use cannabis for recreation and medication, and it heals my mind.

[sam-i-am]

I'm not so sure about the majority doing it Sam, I know solicitors who take drugs, doctors, teachers and many other respectable professional people take drugs, but the majority?

Absolutely the overwhelming majority.

The majority of people express their sexuality through heterosexual sex.

The majority of people express their drug orientation through alcohol.

[tengreenfingers]

There are some MASSIVE problems in this thread and it largely boils down to language. You're all talking about different things and working with different assumptions.

Assumption 1:
Homosexuals are born that way.

I'm unaware of any research identifying any sort of "gay gene" but we seem to have a consensus that somehow it is definitely how the individual was born (like race or gender) and not a lifestyle choice or outcome in any way at all. Fine, I can go with that assumption, but it conflicts MASSIVELY with assumption 2 when looked at logically.

Assumption 2:
Drug users use drugs entirely by choice.

It's not so long since virtually nobody accepted that gays were "born that way". Currently it seems virtually nobody accepts that drug users were "born that way".

Why are we so ready to accept that one kind of lifestyle is something people are born into (some sort of genetic or beyond-their-control developmental predisposition to same-sex relationships) and don't even seem to consider the possibility that the people who "choose" their preferred drugs are doing so for precisely the same genetic or beyond-their-control developmental predisposition?
Why when we are born with an endocannabinoid system that regulates everything from appetite and mood to immune function and we know for a fact that sometimes the endo- system doesn't quite do its job do we persist with the idea that the person who feels most "normal" when cultivating or consuming the cannabis plant is in no way similar t the person who feels most "normal" when in a relationship with someone of the same sex?
In both cases we have (to the best of my knowledge) absolutely zero evidence of a genetic marker for sexuality, drug use or drug of choice (or none of any - there are people who abstain from sex as their "normal" state and those who abstain from *all* drugs on the same basis) and yet we stick to the "it's a choice" line.

I call bullshit. Seeking out intoxication is as much an integral part of the human condition as is seeking out sexual and/or intimate relationships with others.

On that basis (and probably on more besides) it is totally inconsistent to argue one or the other is a choice while the other is not. If one, then both.

To deny that homosexuals are "making a choice" when they "choose" to follow their "natural" desires to form intimate same-sex relationships is to logically deny that drug users are "making a choice" when they "choose" to follow their "natural" desires to alter their state of consciousness.

I'm not putting a dog into either race. I can't say I really *care* whether homosexuality or drug use are genetic, developmental or chosen lifestyles because I think it is a minor issue at best... it had to be pointed out that there are some wild and unsupported assumptions in this thread though.

[PaulHackett]

Good point Sam, i didn't include the alcohol neither do the majority of the population though, drugs will always have a stigma, unlike alcohol, wrongly as you say.

[tengreenfingers]

Good point Sam, i didn't include the alcohol neither do the majority of the population though, drugs will always have a stigma, unlike alcohol, wrongly as you say.

Alcohol is a drug.

When you say "drugs will always have a stigma, unlike alcohol" you're supporting the completely bullshit distinction between the two.

If the general population makes that distinction we should be working very, very hard to overturn it. Alcohol - is - a - drug and you do yourself a disservice when you acknowledge it as being in a separate, somehow "non-drug" category..

Tea. (Caffeine and Theobromine - stimulants)

Coffee. (Caffeine - stimulant with antidepressant action - also applies to Tea above)

Alcohol. (Ethanol - depressant and GABA receptor stimulant)

Tobacco. (Nicotine - stimulant and relaxant)

Cannabis. (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol - analgesic, relaxant, anti-emetic and much more)

Hops. (Dimethylvinyl carbinol - sedative - effective when inhaled)

Lavender. (Linalool - sedative - effective when inhaled)

All are drugs by any sensible definition.

Edited August 26, 2013 by tengreenfingers

[Guest grandad]

in the space between yes and no, theres a lifetime, its the difference between the path you walk and the one you leave behind, its the gap between who you thought you could be and who you really are, its the legroom for the lies you will tell yourself in the future.

[wigwag]

2. It is perfectly possible to utilise drugs responsibly. Same as it's possible to be gay without being a predatory paedophile.

er what the fuck does being gay have to do with being a predatory paedophile? Maybe its me but the way i am reading this statement it is extremely offensive.

[willowisp]

If a company proudly told it's customers - "We are pissheads, we love our beer and we're proud" they'd lose business quick. Why should the use of drugs be any different?

I see people campaigning for the acceptance of tattoos in the workplace, I'm heavily and very visibly tattooed myself - but I don't see the problem. It's up to any employer who they employ and if that person doesn't fit into their team for whatever fair reason that's their business decision.

If I knew a guy was a pisshead and couldn't be relied upon, I wouldnt give him the job and the same thing applies to other drugs. You can call me a traitor but there are pure stoners I know who I wouldn't employ in a million years, a couple are so lazy they wont even get out of bed to piss, they do it in a bottle for fucks sake!

I do agree that most people do have a drive to get out of it on something, doesnt make it right or something to be proud of though.

[sam-i-am]

er what the fuck does being gay have to do with being a predatory paedophile? Maybe its me but the way i am reading this statement it is extremely offensive.

Yes it is extremely offensive, that's the point, in the dark days when being gay was illegal this was a common belief, that all gay people were a risk to children, just as it's a common belief today that all "druggies" are a risk to children and will try and "turn" them

[sam-i-am]

I do agree that most people do have a drive to get out of it on something, doesnt make it right

Yes it does, that's exactly the point. If we have evolved with a natural drive to alter our consciousness then we should and bollocks to what corrupt politicians tell us.

We need pride to counter the shame that society tries to make us feel.

[Guest grandad]

we should not have to hide in fear. I just received an odd phone call from a moving vehicle, asked for my and I replied, they put the phone down, now i'm waiting to see if it was the police on the way here. my home should be my sanctuary.

[PaulHackett]

we should not have to hide in fear. I just received an odd phone call from a moving vehicle, asked for my and I replied, they put the phone down, now i'm waiting to see if it was the police on the way here. my home should be my sanctuary.

How do you know it was from a moving vehicle?

[wigwag]

Yes it is extremely offensive, that's the point, in the dark days when being gay was illegal this was a common belief, that all gay people were a risk to children, just as it's a common belief today that all "druggies" are a risk to children and will try and "turn" them

Ok thanks for clarifying sam, couldn't see where the statement had come from tbh.