Why People Hate Drugs?

[tele]

Many of the mods here can sure as hell tell you that the standard here, or the wanted standard here, is that people can give decent argumentation for their opinions, backing up what they claim, providing references and evidence and so on. Unsubstantiated beliefs, claims and opinions are generelly unwanted. At least that is the impression I have =)

I don't think you can still be demanding explanations from other posters, if they don't feel right to you.

Why not?

Why can't he request that people support their arguments?

I think that this is important, especially when people get in the habit of posting vague or questionable assertions and refusing to support them while getting upset when people challenge them.

I think because it was an stated opinion, why one can't think that way even if it would be false?
Demanding further explanations by saying you are thinking in a wrong manner and I am thinking correctly is simply unnecessary. I think let everyone say what they have to say as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Demanding to explain your opinion isn't "in good spirits" I think.

I say let's continue the subject of drug hate, and why grandmothers fill their grandkids with drugs such as caffeine etc. :d

 

[AllIsDistraction]

at this point wee seem like the only two willing to provide more opinions on the subject as everyone else has engaged into a debate about how should people argue to each other properly.

Well let's keep it going then, shall we? What is it about, let's say DMT, that you think makes it not a drug? Or at least what makes it different from aspirin? Obviously the effects are worlds apart but do you agree that they are both in the same family?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

yeah, is so confusing even this thread went crazy!

That's too bad... I really wanted to see where this idea would go! It's something I think about a lot, and having an open discussion on such a great site is a wonderful thing.

at this point wee seem like the only two willing to provide more opinions on the subject as everyone else has engaged into a debate about how should people argue to each other properly.

So where was it left off? Just pick it back up from there with a continuation of where things were before we got sidetracked and on we shall proceed.

 

[caliwa]

at this point wee seem like the only two willing to provide more opinions on the subject as everyone else has engaged into a debate about how should people argue to each other properly.

Well let's keep it going then, shall we? What is it about, let's say DMT, that you think makes it not a drug? Or at least what makes it different from aspirin? Obviously the effects are worlds apart but do you agree that they are both in the same family?

I see DMT as an aggregate for mind that makes it run under different mechanisms. an aspirin makes your blood thiner and its a pain reliever, so they both alter the body's mechanism in its own way, thing is...

once a drug ( substance) its proven to affect mind in an undeterminable way, its satanized as a DRUG. all substances that dont affect mind are OK for society and laws, even POISONS. there's even legal mind alterers like prozac, but as this kind of effects are under control they mean no harm and have no other goal than to dumb down the spirit of people.

its clear that what is not wanted hence satanized is mind altering. in that way DMT is far away from an aspirin.

 

[tele]

If drug is something that alters one's body/mind in some manner, then we have very very many drugs. Therefore, wouldn't it be smart to kind of put different drugs into different folders? That's why I think of crack/morphine/amphetamine etc as a drug and mushrooms/ayahuasca/cacti as entheogens. Maybe we could come up with more words to describe different sort of drugs?

 

[caliwa]

If drug is something that alters one's body/mind in some manner, then we have very very many drugs. Therefore, wouldn't it be smart to kind of put different drugs into different folders? That's why I think of crack/morphine/amphetamine etc as a drug and mushrooms/ayahuasca/cacti as entheogens. Maybe we could come up with more words to describe different sort of drugs?

But then, this fundamental question arises:

Should we as members of society ask authorities to "approve" us who know the entheogenic usage as legal users, making a society into which certain people is probed to be able to use certain types of "constructive" drugs and propose a elite of authorized mind travelers being confident in the fact that authorities are going to be competent enough to select them


OR

should we mind traveles be rebelds againts authorities and mantain our exploration as a rebelion without asking nothing to authorities.

 

[AllIsDistraction]

I think we are all somewhat in agreeance with each other here. There are very, very many drugs in the world. Most people take some form of them.

My belief is that certain drugs should stop getting Satanized and people should wake up to the reality that drugs are a crucial part of human life and society. Everything from caffeine to salvia plays a role. Education not penalization. Opening minds of understanding, not closing doors of jail cells.

We could come up with more words but I think that would side-step the point a bit. Instead of making new categories for each drug just ditch the whole idea that drugs are evil. They CAN be destructive (like most things) and they CAN ruin lives but if we started putting drugs in a new light maybe society could wake up and stop the mindless persecution.

 

[dreamer042]

personally I like terms like medicine, medication, food, supplement, remedy, antidote, tonic, vaccine, etc...

I would call mushrooms an entheogenic medicine.

Aspirin might fall in the category of pharmaceutical headache remedy/antidote.

Willow bark (what aspirin is derived from) might fall in the category of medicinal herb.

Crack cocaine I would call a street drug.

Coffee I would call a food or recreational herb.

Caffeine filled energy drink might be recreational drug since it contains powerful pharmaceuticals.

DMT is tricky, I'd probably classify it somewhere between entheogenic medicine and neurotransmitter supplement.

I think creating less ambiguous classes for these things rather than lumping them all under the category of "drugs" makes a lot of sense in changing the general perception of these things.

We all know marijuana, heroin, dmt, and alcohol are all very different substances with different applications and effects; and probably shouldn't all be classed together as the same thing.

 

[polytrip]

If drug is something that alters one's body/mind in some manner, then we have very very many drugs. Therefore, wouldn't it be smart to kind of put different drugs into different folders? That's why I think of crack/morphine/amphetamine etc as a drug and mushrooms/ayahuasca/cacti as entheogens. Maybe we could come up with more words to describe different sort of drugs?

Yes, it's the word 'drug' that brings all these nasty associations of addiction.
People who're seriously addicted to something, whether it's drugs, gambling or sex, are the least attractive of our species. That's just the way it is. Addiction is a true curse.

 

[ragabr]

Maybe we could come up with more words to describe different sort of drugs?

Like stimulant, dissociative, narcotic, hallucinogen, empathogen and deliriant?

 

[tele]

Maybe we could come up with more words to describe different sort of drugs?

Like stimulant, dissociative, narcotic, hallucinogen, empathogen and deliriant?

Yes I know these terms. But words to distinguish in general the meaning of a drug. Such as why alcohol is called alcohol and not a drug in our society? Even when it's probably the worst drug?

I mean if people call alcohol like that, why couldn't they make similar distinctions for other "drugs". Why should people associate for example mushrooms to drugs when they could be thought of simply as mushrooms or entheogens, without the necessary connection of the "drug" word.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

This goes back to cultural conditioning

If a culture wants to propagate the idea that "drugs" are bad, then alcohol and pharmaceuticals and tobacco won't be seen as "drugs" - they will be exceptions to this term that has been earmarked for evil substances. This is how cultural programming works, you create buzz words for concepts and then drum up support for these buzz words which then take center stage, rather than the real issue.

So understanding why we have a simplified presentation of "drugs" in the social discourse, we can safely say that the terms ragabr suggested are the best terms for discussing the various classes of drugs, and that "drugs" is a neutral term that has been polarized by the powers that be, for political ends.

Thinking of mushrooms "simply as entheogens" doesn't help anyone, it's just an attempt to escape this polarized term of "drugs" and replace it with the less politically-charged term "entheogen" which is only the current term-du-jour as a result of "psychedelics" getting all the negative publicity of past generations.

An entheogen, by definition, depends on the user not the substance.

Mushrooms contain chemical constituents or "drugs" that cause people to have the experiences they do and as such are "drugs" or at least drug-containing fungi.


As to asking authority figures for approval - if your own physiology is not your domain when you do not negatively impact others - the authority figures are probably the reason. Ultimately we need to be seen as people. People who alter their consciousness and work jobs and go to school and pay taxes and do everything else that people do. We're not different just because we choose to ingest X and they choose to ingest Y. The "drugs" demonization and surrounding discourse creates an Us v. Them dichotomy that has zero bearing on reality.

 

[caliwa]

This goes back to cultural conditioning

If a culture wants to propagate the idea that "drugs" are bad, then alcohol and pharmaceuticals and tobacco won't be seen as "drugs" - they will be exceptions to this term that has been earmarked for evil substances. This is how cultural programming works, you create buzz words for concepts and then drum up support for these buzz words which then takes center stage, rather than the real issue.

So understanding why we have a simplified presentation of "drugs" in the social discourse, we can safely say that the terms ragabr suggested are the best terms for discussing the various classes of drugs, and that "drugs" is a neutral term that has been polarized by the powers that be for political ends.

Thinking of mushrooms "simply as entheogens" doesn't help anyone, it's just an attempt to escape this polarized term of "drugs" and replace it with the less politically-charged term "entheogen" which is only the current term-du-jour as a result of "psychedelics" getting all the negative publicity of past generations.

An entheogen, by definition, depends on the user not the substance.

Mushrooms contain chemical constituents or "drugs" that cause people to have the experiences they do and as such are "drugs" or at least drug-containing fungi.


As to asking authority figures for approval - if your own physiology is not your domain when you do not negatively impact others - the authority figures are probably the reason. Ultimately we need to be seen as people. People who alter their consciousness and work jobs and go to school and pay taxes and do everything else that people do. We're not different just because we choose to ingest X and they choose to ingest Y. The "drugs" demonization and surrounding discourse creates an Us v. Them dichotomy that has zero bearing on reality.

so what would be your thoughts on creating a way for concious people to use drugs freely? and by freely I mean no legal menance.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Well, the only time people throughout history have gotten rights is when they stand up and demand them.

Rights are not handed down from above on gilded pillows, they are hard-fought and won through popular movements like the civil-rights movement, the feminist movement, the LGBT movement and plenty others.

So what do we need to do? We need to get organized...we need to have a public voice that asserts who we are...we need to do what MPP and NORML are in the process of doing for cannabis with psychedelics (arguably with all drugs, the end of prohibition would be greater than the end of some of it, but psychedelics are a relatively easy case to argue when compared to "hard" drugs).

Until WE stand up and demand our rights as drug users or entheogen users or psychonauts or whatever term seems most prudent, we will not be able to use these substances without fear of a legal menace.

CEL has the potential to do this, or to start to do this if it were to actually have the skeleton that we created filled in. We need to create literature that is people-friendly (the average person has zero interest in reading a scientific study) but well-researched and transparent as far as it's sources, ideally we need to generate funding and volunteers to create a self-sustaining entheogen-lobby, as funny as that may sound. Within the current socio-political paradigm (at least in the US) there's no other way to even have a voice, so to speak.

 

[christian]

I think another reason why "people may hate drugs" is because people are afraid of something that may temporarily distract them from their comfort zone of "always thinking".

-People like to feel like they have life under control, and thought out well. Sometimes the insights on a few puffs of a joint are not welcome, because it can make them question everything that they have spent years believing. It's just a lot easier for them to keep on believing what they've been taught, and not what the ganja is trying to help them realise.

>Watching the last bits of a programme on Buddhism last night, i realised that Buddhism is really all about getting in tune with our inner core selves. Then i thought that rather than meditation, that Ayahuasca, shrooms, san pedro, etc...all did the same. As buddha said, "find your own path". The point i'm trying to make is that we in the west suffer from a "thinking disease" that is responsible for distancing us from our inner selves. People take drugs to get away from the "always thinking" state, and in the process recieve insights. This is true of all drugs, even including cocaine and crack.

-Most of todays stress exists only in the mind, in the form of mental stress, caused by overthinking. It's a pity that people hate drugs, because they may in fact be catalysts to help them to "see the bigger picture", out of their always thinking and confused mental states. All that they need to do is to have their set, setting, and dose sorted-and an open mind. Perhaps they might then start liking drugs, especially if they can be used wisely and positively to enhance their lives??8)

 

[ragabr]

Wouldn't this only apply to people who have used drugs, and had some discomfort experiencing the questioning state?

My experience may be exceptional, but most of my family comes from dry counties in the Midwest and they're all pretty solidly against recreational use of any drugs.

 

[christian]

I guess i can't answer that. I guess we all have to look within to find our real reasons for "why we hate drugs". I'ts most likely due to guilty feelings spread by religion, and worries of getting busted, and "what would my family say" all rolled into one. However we used to think about sex like that a few years ago, and nowdays sex is everywhere. I guess drugs are one of the remaining "naughty" frontiers left. And there are some pretty prudish closed minded people out there that would rather simply say that "drugs are bad" because they don't use them, and therefore it's of no interest to them to stand up for drugs use in society.

-Luckily there are some people out there that DO have the facts, and are making a stand for our human rights of self expression.

>> It could also be that some people are quite happy with the life they have, and feel no need to alter their consciousness. I am like this, although i believe that it's experiences that make life, and i'm all up for making those experiences during my travels, etc...Perhaps some people are more adventurous than others, whilst some like to stick to their safe ruts???:?:

 

[caliwa]

your opinions refer me to the book brave new world by aldoux huxley. A paradise of controlled humans who actually used drugs. Its creepy to think that mass manipulation can lead people to actually use drugs but in a dictatorial way that even be beneficial to state and goverments interests.

 

[christian]

Wahey,
I'm talking about people being free to use drugs if they choose- not control!...If people don't choose to safeguard their individual rights, then figures of authority will do it instead. People cannot reasonably hate drugs untill they have had a good go at trying them themselves. Only then can they be in a position as to decide -for themselves, if they should choose to dislike drugs, or avoid them, etc.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

People cannot reasonably hate drugs untill they have had a good go at trying them themselves. Only then can they be in a position as to decide -for themselves, if they should choose to dislike drugs, or avoid them, etc.

But that's not what we see...we see people who have never tried a single "drug" hating drugs.

Or we see people who indulge in culturally accepted drugs like coffee hating "drugs" that are not culturally accepted.





On a less related note...
Individual rights can only exist when certain other rights have been established, they are in fact one of two "currents" of human rights. The sort of rights you refer to are civil/political rights that focus on the individual, leading to "rights-based legalism". The second current deals less with personal freedoms and more with basic needs...theoretically this is requisite for the type of personal rights you invoke, so "safeguarding individual rights" can't begin until you address safeguarding basic needs (which could be seen as anti-colonialism/anti-imperialism).