Rize said:
No rush. If you ever respond and I don't seem to have noticed PM me.
Also, here's an interesting link. Don't be so sure that a drug like LSD can't be useful:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70015-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
The guy who discovered LSD (and who also used it) turned 100 a few days ago. He says he invented it as a medicine and that he still believes it could be useful in psychiatry. I think he makes a good point.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/01/11/lsd.inventor.ap/ <-- here's another perspective on the story.
A few gems from the wired article:
"Dr. Andrew Sewell, a psychiatrist and neurologist from the Harvard Medical School who studies alcohol and drug abuse, says most problems with LSD occur when users take an unknown dose they don't feel comfortable with, in an uncontrolled setting, without supervision to shield them from dangerous situations."
"LSD flashbacks are well-confirmed phenomenon but they are relatively rare and don't seem to cause as much trouble as the media would have you believe," said Dr. Sewell at the LSD symposium.
"There is no evidence that LSD causes permanent brain damage -- and quite a lot of evidence that it doesn't," said Sewell. "We are lucky that we have over 1,000 papers written in the '50s and '60s when LSD was given to thousands and thousands of research subjects so we have a pretty good idea at this point what it does and does not do."
Just to point out some things which you were probably unaware of since the war on drugs is an entirely one sided propaganda war (in addition to a government backed war of law).
sorry for a late response Rize. long night at work and talked to my fiancee for a bit today, and go back in tonight, but i will be sure to make some response since i said i would.
i have heard about the positives of LSD use.
i was watching The History Channel a few months ago, and they did a big special on drugs, and the war on drugs, their use, and how they were all legal and went to illegal.
that's why i brought up E. the clash between the psychologists showing that good things were happening for couples in for marriage counseling by taking it, as compared to there not being a scientfic reasoning that it should help.
then showing the close connection between the anti-Vietnam War movement and the war on drugs.
now of course The History Channel, as i like how they do it, they don't say which view is right. both sides were given.
in regards to your previous post, i feel safe to say that you and i agree that the punishment that drug users get, is over the line. like you, i believe drug addicts should be given more and more and more chances, instead of swift punishment. i don't view drugs as a huge moral issue until it is harming others, or harming one-self (which that one i know is very tricky), and i don't view it as a religious issue either. i would be very pleased to see drug addicts get several if not many attempts before jail time and jail time be the extreme last resort. forced rehabiliation by the law, i wish they would do before too many of the run ins with the law happen for the addict.
one thing i noticed in your previous post is who's right or wrong. my comment wasn't trying to say who was right or wrong. but in a debate, usually one side is saying the one side is wrong, or right. it doesn't have to be blatantly said, it's just a given. and with the issues of drugs, i have a hard time seeing there being an absolute truth to be debated about.
i have been reading your posts very through and through, at least i thought i have, or i wouldn't have responded as i have to your responses. i believe i have caught what your trying to say. that by having drugs illegal, it takes away freedom. instead of the person making a choice to say no, we have the government "basically" stopping us from doing something because of the extreme punishment for it.
and ya know the more i think about it, yea it is taking away human freedom. that can't be proven wrong.
but i guess the fundamental difference between us is, i dont' see it as wrong to take away freedom to use drugs. we know that drugs can be used in good and bad ways. but i think an issue is does the good outweigh the bad? and i think the bad outweighs the good personally, in this case.
and one thing to keep in mind if we keep discussing this, ca use i dont' want to come off like i have so far anymore, but i just want you to understand a few things. one i have seen the bad effects of drugs up close. now i'm not saying you haven't, i'm just saying i have. so the negative on this issue 99 percent of the time is always going to go beyond the good. and i have noticed a lot of things with this issue when it comes to liberals that cry out for freedom in this area, the liberal side seems to be in a lot of conspiracy theories. things that can't actually be proven (well most of the time), but only speculation. and i have a hard time trusting in the liberal views on this issue at time, because, one side states a proof of the dangers of drug, and the scientific testing, but when there is a bad result, it seems, i'm saying seems here ok? but it seems that is the only time an argument that is saying the testing procedure is dumb.
well i'll leave it here for now. i'll check your links out either before i go to work or tomorrow, and sometime tomorrow, i'll go and look at your previous post and hopefully this post here touched on all of it, and if not, i'll make another one that addresses where i missed.
God Bless! <><
