earth

[Daz Madrigal]

piccione said:

Well well Daz - all this superstitious astrology nonsense is not going to look good on your pathway-to-salvation record. It’s a bit like admitting to your Christian disciple that you’re flirting with Allah.....

Now tell me something - about the ‘science’ of astrology:

Astrologers say that the /exact/ time of birth is very important. What /is/ the exact time of birth though? Is it when the water breaks…when the newborn’s head comes out…the feet…?

Or is it the time the consultant/midwife remembers to fill in the paperwork, looks at the clock and says: 'Time of birth was...err... is…3.10pm'?

God might be forgiving of such little ‘inaccuracies’. I doubt the stars will be.

That explains why I was fired from my brief career as a Male Midwife...my assistant nurse kept shouting the 'babys coming!!!' whilst I stuck to priorities and told her to 'hang on, what time is it?'

Thats one silly question answered.

The rest are interesting points that have little to do with the topic in hand.

1) Medication and its problems is strictly a scientific flaw. You questioned the scientific establishment and proved them wrong. However, many more are addicted to a wide range of prescription drugs far more hazardous than mere cannabis.

2) Of course, people are sceptical of such a nebulous concept as 'symbolism' despite the fact that from the aforementioned Shakespeare to any great artwork in history it is obvious that symbolism was an essential ingredient of life.

There are plethora of authors who attempt to use it in the 21 century of whom Marina Warner is perhaps the most famous and academically respected.

However, we are so overwhelmed by gadgetry that it doesn't seem worthwhile pursuing. It akin to suggesting that one can remain young forever simply by the frequent use of Plastic Surgery.

..which again is yet another scientific whim which despite its many positives ultimately negates life rather improves it. What started out as a wonderful example of science being used to help the victims of World Wars is eventually devalued to a tawdry money making exercise for failed actresses and ten a penny It-Girls and Minor Celebs.

This is an all to frequent problem with science. What begins as a humanistic exercise very often ends up by stripping us of any sense of time, humility and acceptance of life (all of which spring from Spiritual concerns).

As Oprah Winfrey said..

Where there is no struggle, there is no strength.

[Daz Madrigal]

Have you been weight training, Ian?

[piccione]

Daz

///....that have little to do with the topic in hand.////

.....which is…?

////Medication and its problems is strictly a scientific flaw. You questioned the scientific establishment and proved them wrong. However, many more are addicted to a wide range of prescription drugs far more hazardous than mere cannabis./////

It’s a very unpopular concept in these PC-ridden, ‘victim culture’ days to say that addiction requires a certain vulnerability - a psychological (and sometimes also possibly biological) proneness, since the ascription of blame to the individual is automatically assumed. It’s more ‘PC’ to say that addicts (especially those to prescribed medication, since they are often ‘ordinary‘, 'well-adapted' members of society) are victims of a powerful drug.

But assuming blame is a flawed perception: The person taking illicit drugs, for instance to blank out a childhood trauma (such as sexual abuse) is as ‘innocent’ of the cause of their addiction as the patient who gets hooked on prescribed medication after a period of treatment. Yet the patient who gets hooked is as likely to be ‘predisposed’ (if even only temporarily, and/or for different reasons - and maybe ‘simply‘ vulnerable for the reason of requiring such medication in the first place, ‘despite’ being a ‘normally functioning’ member of society) as the addict who gets hooked on illicit drugs ‘voluntarily’. There is no ‘blame’ implied for either of them within this concept. But to deny the /real/ causes of addiction by ‘simply’ blaming the drug (prescribed or illicit) is counter-productive to a ‘cure‘. If an addict is told often enough they are the helpless victim of the drug, they will believe it (and it actually can become a ‘convenient excuse’ to continue) - and never begin to address the /real/ reasons underlying addiction.

Despite some (prescribed and illicit) drugs being physically additive, it is never the relatively short period of physical withdrawal that prevents people from quitting. That ‘merely’ serves as a ‘compulsive excuse’. It is, even if ‘only’ subconsciously, the time without the impact and sensations of the drug following detox that is. But if someone /believes/ that they are helpless victims to the drug -because they have been told so many times- then quitting will become infinitely harder for them, since the real reasons are never addressed.

That some prescribed medications are physically addictive is true - it’s common knowledge and an awareness that responsible pharmacists/medical doctors /have/. But not everyone who takes such medication gets hooked. And not every consultant/GP who prescribes such drugs acts responsibly, or solely in the patient’s best interest. That’s not the ‘fault’ of the drug, but human failure or negligence.

////Of course, people are sceptical of such a nebulous concept as 'symbolism' despite the fact that from the aforementioned Shakespeare to any great artwork in history it is obvious that symbolism was an essential ingredient of life.////

Yes, and it still is. Same with religion/religious symbolism. There are very good and convincing arguments for the advantages and positive effects of religious beliefs (or other belief systems) for ‘prone’ individuals. In fact, there are even scientific arguments suggesting that our brain function encourages such belief systems (metaphorical or literal belief systems) because they are, or can be, beneficial. And to /some/ extend all humans are prone to ‘buying into’ various kinds of belief systems. This may serve a motivational purpose for survival, as far as a ‘meaning of life’ is concerned (and in many cases, e.g. religion, that of what follows after physical existence). It’s the ‘burden’ of the conscious mind. And also - not to forget another ‘survival instinct’ - cultural conformity in societies where certain belief systems are widely held. The more answers we find, the less important such belief systems become, but it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever have /all/ the answers.

But, likewise, there have /always/ been counter-movements - people disputing the need for such belief systems, and their actual truth/reality, because, for various reasons, they have no personal need for them, or are not ‘prone‘ to them. Or opposition triggered by an awareness of (equally common) exploitation of such belief systems by opportunists who have a personal or collective interest to promote them.

////..which again is yet another scientific whim which despite its many positives ultimately negates life rather improves it. What started out as a wonderful example of science being used to help the victims of World Wars is eventually devalued to a tawdry money making exercise for failed actresses and ten a penny It-Girls and Minor Celebs. This is an all to frequent problem with science. What begins as a humanistic exercise very often ends up by stripping us of any sense of time, humility and acceptance of life (all of which spring from Spiritual concerns).////

This has nothing to do with science itself though. 'Science' is the factual, neutral (as in value-free), knowledge base derived from empirical scientific methodology. This is why I have an issue with theists pushing for ID to be part of science: It is, and never can be, a factual, scientifically in-/valid outcome of scientific methodology, or even simply scientifically testable.

What you describe is the culturally qualified ‘exploitation’ of this factual knowledge base, be that ‘positive’ (as in applying scientific facts ‘positively’ e.g. to cure diseases) or ‘negatively’ e.g. to serve human vanity and ‘youth culture’. Still - one could argue that both phenomena, ‘negative’ and ‘positive‘, are inherently biologically driven: Humans (like any other species) ’naturally’ have an innately ‘selfish’ and collective interest in maintaining their species and support/maintain other humans in their social group (i.e. cure diseases). Being/looking young and ‘potent’ is a vital attribute for sexual selection, signalling fertility, and thereby attracting mates.

It’s the (culturally ‘distorted‘) conscious human mind that blows these biological advantages out of proportion and takes them to the extreme of ‘make believe‘: Strictly speaking, i.e. biologically, (seriously) sick people are of no value to the maintenance of the species. /Strictly/ (biologically) speaking, it’s advantageous for the social group if they died, since they are a burden (and amongst other species they do just that - die). And neither are old people, ‘made’ to look young(er) by artificial means, fertile. But sick people are of great emotional/social value to those close to them. Therefore, there is an argument for their maintenance to be beneficial for the whole social group.

I can’t, for the life of me, think of /any/ actual advantages for the whole social group of old people made to look young(er) - except from /cultural/ /personal/ benefit/profit.... ;D

In fact, I think they are far more advantageous and beneficial to the whole social group if they openly and honestly (visually and behaviourally) signal their age and life experience....

[vishnu]

Why so negative.

Its easy to pull things apart and the short reign of atheism resulted in more widespread slaughter in one century than all the others put together.

Of course symbolism has no meaning if it is not recognised, just as some great art is no more significant than some daubing by a sunday painter for many people. You can't force people to see things though your eyes. Its all in perception..what I see isn't what Mel sees, just as what Mel see's isn't what anyone else we both see or what Sandy perceives.

Very rarely a religious person deigns to post and more often than not its complete tosh but occasionally its obviously well meant and fairly moderate but its very trendy nowadays to completely trash people like that and it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. In fact its very interesting how eager people are to tear apart a fairly mild Christian with reasonably mild Anglican beliefs.

And anyway I support the underdog. The reason I mention other people is that whether people beleive or not is of no concern to me. Its part hobby but also partly a tool to glimpse something more mysterious and beyond understanding. Its nothing more than that..there are no human sacrifices, drinking of blood or ritual slaughter of enemies. Also to deride something without actually bothering to know anything about it smacks of a certain arrogance. To suggest that everything can be quantified and measured is taking science to new and heady heights.

There is no real need to believe the doctor is always right and knows better than you do, therefore you were perfectly correct to refuse the medication (the proviso is that you know yourself better than the Doctor..and thats rarely the case).

[sandywinder]

Piccy

/// That some prescribed medications are physically addictive is true - it’s common knowledge and an awareness that responsible pharmacists/medical doctors /have/. But not everyone who takes such medication gets hooked. And not every consultant/GP who prescribes such drugs acts responsibly, or solely in the patient’s best interest. That’s not the ‘fault’ of the drug, but human failure or negligence. ///

The difference between prescribed drugs being addictive and illicit drugs is that the prescribers KNOW that they are addictive, should inform the takers of this addictiveness and so take pains to LIMIT the doling out of these drugs to ensure that the patient does NOT get addicted.

On the open market the user does not have this restriction. In fact people who sell them drugs are all to keen to ensure they DO become addicted to ensure further sales.

But most users are well aware that these illegal drugs are addictive so they do have to share in the blame, unlike people who become addicted from prescribed drugs. In this case it is the GP or drug manufacturer who is most likely to blame.

If you do not blame the illegal drug addict to some extent you might just as well say Doctor Shipman, Ian Huntley, the Yorkshire Ripper and every other criminal is equally blameless because something in their past possibly caused them to go off the rails.

The fact that their evil may be inborn is always discounted. Just as a person's stupidity to take illegal drugs (that may or may not be dangerous for them - either in the short or long term) can also be inborn.

[piccione]

Sands

Soz - another long post coming. You’ve only got yourself to blame though. Such ignorance, as displayed in your post, deserves either a lengthy reply or none at all. Maybe no reply would have been wiser. Umm well - I try to be perfect, but /sometimes/ I make mistakes.... ;D

/////The difference between prescribed drugs being addictive and illicit drugs is that the prescribers KNOW that they are addictive, should inform the takers of this addictiveness and so take pains to LIMIT the doling out of these drugs to ensure that the patient does NOT get addicted./////

The difference is, Sands, that prescribed drugs can ‘legitimise’ addictive behaviour, because the drug is ‘officially authorised’, and /not/ illegal. Prescribed drug misuse is a ‘respectable’ way of misuse/addiction, since they are ‘mainstream’ drugs, ‘socially acceptable’ even to those who condemn (illicit) drug use and addiction. This distinction makes it easier to ‘blame’ misuse/addiction on the drug and/or on the GP/consultant who prescribes them. However, the real cause for developing an addiction in the first place doesn’t lie with the drug, or the ‘prescriber’. Albeit some GPs/psychiatrists prescribe such drugs irresponsibly, ie out of professional convenience to avoid going down the ‘complicated’ route of addressing the /real/ issues, or simply because they follow a ‘prescribed’ course of action (…and not to forget that many legal drugs are ‘pushed’ by pharmaceutical companies just as illegal drugs are by the black market). Still, there are people who become addicted to over-the-counter medication, such as cough medicine, despite the fact that the vast majority of users do not.

I refer you back to what I said on another thread: ‘Addiction’ is on the extreme end of a continuum, and any substance/activity that is completely harmless and ‘controllable’ for one person can become ‘dangerous’ (i.e. addictive) to another, depending on the ‘proneness’ (or lack of) of the individual. In many cases, we don’t acknowledge the ‘addictive behaviour’ as a problem because it doesn’t affect us ie wider society.

It’s a similar phenomenon to that of over-diagnosed ‘illnesses’, such as ADHD, autism, Aspergers etc: The ‘abilities’ such ‘illnesses’ prevent or diminish are highly valued, desirable and even essential in our society. So their lack or absence is explained by the ‘disease model’. As soon as a clinical label is attached, everyone can sigh with relief, because there is a ‘natural reason’ for the problem. It’s no good for the parent that their child may ‘simply’ be hyper-active and attention-seeking, because it ascribes blame and failure to them as parents. As soon as the child is diagnosed with ADHD, the ‘blame’ is taken away. In short, such (over)diagnoses serve a social function. No-one would think of developing a ‘disease model’ for the absence of less relevant social or practical abilities, such as riding a bike.

I’m not saying btw that autism etc doesn’t exist. I’m saying it’s over-diagnosed, for various ‘social functioning’ and agenda-driven reasons: e.g. to prevent social blame, to promote the sales of certain medications, to avoid addressing overall social dysfunctions. It’s a concept that /conveniently/ serves all, really.

And it’s the same with labeling (drug) addiction as an ‘illness’.

////On the open market the user does not have this restriction. In fact people who sell them drugs are all to keen to ensure they DO become addicted to ensure further sales.////

But only those ‘prone’ to addiction (see above) /will/ become addicted. Recreational users are not ‘problem users’, albeit perceived as such by the law and by public opinion.

////But most users are well aware that these illegal drugs are addictive so they do have to share in the blame, unlike people who become addicted from prescribed drugs. In this case it is the GP or drug manufacturer who is most likely to blame.////

See above. The premise that, unlike people who take illicit drugs, people who are addicted to prescribe drugs are ‘innocent victims’ of their addiction (i.e. of the drug) is a classic example of ‘attributional excuse’ for addiction – totally self-/deluded, yet widely accepted ‘drugspeak’ – /unfortunately/, since it is counter-productive for the addict. They are just as ‘responsible’ for their addiction as illicit drug users are – ‘responsible’ in a value-free sense btw, meaning they make a ‘choice’ derived from what is ‘right’ for them at that moment in time.

Such medical definitions of ‘addiction’ are purely /functional/, in a society where addiction/drug taking overall is condemned, meaning they serve as ‘convenient’ justifications for those who ‘deserve’ escaping such condemnation. It’s interesting that the same concept is applied when kids of ‘respectable’ families become addicted to (illicit) drugs. /Then/ it’s the drug’s fault, but when some ‘low-life’ gets hooked on the very same drug, it’s /their/ ‘fault’.

////If you do not blame the illegal drug addict to some extent you might just as well say Doctor Shipman, Ian Huntley, the Yorkshire Ripper and every other criminal is equally blameless because something in their past possibly caused them to go off the rails. The fact that their evil may be inborn is always discounted. Just as a person's stupidity to take illegal drugs (that may or may not be dangerous for them - either in the short or long term) can also be inborn.////

It ain’t about ‘blaming’, or ‘absolving’ though. It’s about a choice people make when it seems ‘right’ for them as the most ‘reasonable’ choice they can make in order to cope at that moment in time. Whether /I/ think it’s the ‘right’ choice or not is irrelevant. The ‘blame’ or ‘absolution’ is imposed/given by attributional and prevalent functional perceptions of society: The law forbids illicit drug use, whereas it doesn’t prohibit prescribed drug use. In effect, the addict to prescribed drugs, especially if perceived as an ‘adapted member of society’, is ‘socially excused’ by medical explanations for their addiction. But no matter whether drugs are illegal or legal, to the //addict//, they serve the same purpose. That fact, in itself, makes neither of them any more ‘guilty’ of the potentially damaging consequences for themselves, their families and to society as it makes the driver who exposes themselves and others to the risk of being injured/killed in an accident every time they drive a car.

There are many people who self-medicate on illicit drugs to avoid long waiting lists and complicated procedures (and often social stigma) of accessing highly under-resourced Community Mental Health Teams. So under-resourced, in fact, that they only deal with ‘severe’ cases such as people with (diagnosed) schizophrenia, bi-polar etc. In fact, if everyone who self-medicated went for the legal option (CMHTs) instead, the demand would sky-rocket. If addicts try and access CMHT to escape their drug use (by addressing the issues underlying their addiction), they are referred to NHS drug addiction units, because, being under-resourced, most CMHTs refuse to work with them as long as they have a substance misuse problem (so much for the reality of dual diagnosis). They are then placed on even longer (NHS) waiting lists to access detox programmes. And that ain’t it. If they want to access rehab after detox, they have to go onto local authorities’ (social services) waiting lists. And rehabs are means-tested. //Everyone// accessing them has to make financial contributions.

By that time, illicit drug use (or continued use) may appear the infinitely more attractive and ‘reasonable’ option....

Illicit drug use may eventually get people caught up in the vicious circle of the illegal market (i.e. expensive drugs creating a ‘need’ to commit crime etc), but users don’t set out on drug use/addiction on that premise. It is a ‘side-effect’ of the illegal market. To compare illicit drug addicts to pathological killers such as Shipman, the Yorkshire Ripper etc (because of that vicious circle they may get caught up in) is err ‘slightly’ over the top Sands ain’t it…?

Would they resort to illicit drug use (and committing mainly /petty/ crime) out of pure, 'innate evil’ if they could access these drugs legally/at reasonable prices? Do they become addicts under the premise of wanting to bring out the ‘killer’ in themselves…?

Jezzzzzus!!

Illicit drug users commit crime out of desperation (as a consequence of the illegal market) – not to /deliberately/ inflict ‘evil’ on society, but in order to maintain a habit that is their life-line.

How about comparing them to people who resolve to other coping strategies such as self-harm? Ah, but that doesn’t affect /you/ directly does it. And so self-harmers are /not/ ‘innately evil’.....

[Daz Madrigal]

Woah..theres a lot in there, Piccione.

Wuodl you sya hat dyslexia si ouvre dianogosed?

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Illicit drug users commit crime out of desperation (as a consequence of the illegal market) – not to /deliberately/ inflict ‘evil’ on society, but in order to maintain a habit that is their life-line.

How about comparing them to people who resolve to other coping strategies such as self-harm? Ah, but that doesn’t affect /you/ directly does it. And so self-harmers are /not/ ‘innately evil’.....>>

Not a good analogy.

Women tend to be self harmers because..well they are less aggressive and would rather harm themselves rather than other people.

To describe either as 'evil' is a bit silly. There aren't any easy solutions to either but we can definitely say that 'self harming' is not something that goes on in Third World Countries. Maybe they have less time to self contemplate.

Its the same with astrology..Eastern Astrology is only interested in the predictive whilst Western is all about 'who am I?'..leaving aside the subject the thought patterns are the same. If you are living in an Indian/African/S.American Village you just don't spend time thinking about 'yourself'. Its a modern phenomena.

Its also a scientist phenomena and goes against the grain of any spiritual values and is a measure of our overly materialistic, secular and self obsessed celebrity media culture.

[piccione]

Daz

///Wuodl you sya hat dyslexia si ouvre dianogosed?///

Yes, I wuodl.

There are physical factors that may make a person more ‘prone’ to addiction, but by far not everyone who becomes addicted to drugs has such ‘physical proneness’, and not every person who has is ‘physically prone’ becomes addicted to drugs.

The same is true for dyslexia. The causes can be physically and/or environmentally induced. Not to mention the impact of poor diet on physical/brain development....

But it’s far more convenient to blame it all on physical proneness, and ‘naturally abnormal’ brain function.

Especially with ‘mild’ forms of dyslexia. If a student/pupil ‘fails’ to achieve required standards, it looks far better for the parents and the school (and the diagnosed individual) if this ‘failure’ is down to a physical predisposition. ‘Responsibility’ always has the label of individual ‘blame’ and ‘failure’ attached to it (…‘failure’ in the sense of expected ‘social conformity’ btw), so no-one wants it. Instead of addressing this multi-facetted flaw, we now have 'PC-speak' (as a different, yet equally flawed way of addressing that ‘lack’ - of socially expected conformity) – and no-one is ‘responsible’ for /anything/ anymore.

Of course, people diagnosed with dyslexia (and their families) will heavily dispute all that – just as drug addicts (still fully involved in their drug-taking, and often even after quitting) will, since they are ‘naturally’ happy to comply with official ‘drug-/PC-speak', because it helps them to evade social condemnation for drug-taking, and thereby fit into ‘social norm’ again, even if only by 'disease'. And that's perfectly understandable as well. Who wants to be socially excluded? One should certainly /never/ underestimate the power of ‘culture’....

But it’s a rather ‘curious’ fact that most heroin addicts give up the drug when the time is ‘right’ for them, despite its physical addictiveness.

As an example: I know someone who was a heavy, regular crack user for over 10 years, which is a bloody long time (…who held down a job all the way through his addiction btw, and even managed to hide his drug use from his family). A few months ago, he stopped. From one day to another. Lots of things have changed in his life. And fair play to him, he worked bloody hard to change them, despite his drug use (and, interestingly, in the time when he started to address these issues, his crack use got worse). Now, that he has given up, he craves, and has bad days, yes, but he has no need for crack anymore. He doesn’t take /any/ anti-depressants, doesn’t access /any/ support services. He just did it – but he wouldn’t have done it 5 years ago. Initially (when quitting) he told me he /hated/ the stuff – what it did to his life, how it held him back. But he’s now beginning to realise that it was never the drug itself that held him back, but all the issues in his life that he had blanked out in the past, covering them up with crack use instead, and which he now had addressed and overcome, or dealt with anyway.

///Women tend to be self harmers because..well they are less aggressive and would rather harm themselves rather than other people.///

It’s also far more women who tend to become addicted to prescribed drugs, most probably because women are less inclined to take risks (for themselves) than men do (who far more tend to become addicted to alcohol and illicit drugs).

At the time (in the early 20th century) when opiate prescriptions where still legal and ‘common’, it was mainly /women/ who became addicted.

///To describe either as 'evil' is a bit silly.///

…a ‘bit’…? Umm.....

////There aren't any easy solutions to either but we can definitely say that 'self harming' is not something that goes on in Third World Countries. Maybe they have less time to self contemplate.////

‘Maybe’…? I’d say /most definitely/! If you don’t know where your next meal is coming from, you’re hardly likely to worry about finding your own identity or your place in society. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and all that. /We/ are at the top of Maslow’s pyramid (Esteem and Self-actualisation), whereas people in Third World countries are at the very bottom of ‘Physiological Needs’. It’s perfectly normal and human to worry about ‘the next step up’ when your ‘lower’ needs are fulfilled.

////Its also a scientist phenomena and goes against the grain of any spiritual values and is a measure of our overly materialistic, secular and self obsessed celebrity media culture.////

I’m not sure what that has got to do with scientific facts. It’s got to do with their cultural /interpretation/, but it’s /mostly/ got to do with the fact that we, in over-saturated Western societies, can ‘afford’ to squander our time on issues not related to /any/ basic needs. In fact, we are so over-saturated we can even afford to waste our time on artificially created phenomena that have no true or essential relevance to our existence at all. But not all of these are 'negative'. We can afford to ‘squander’ our time on the most eccentric arts, literature, music, philosophy etc – the most creative ‘products’ of humankind.

Over-saturation leads to boredom though, and it’s all blown out of proportion – trying to give meaning to the meaningless. The best example are exceedingly over-saturated people who come to fame and can’t deal with it ‘appropriately’, as many famous people can’t – see Bono et al.

And I would argue that many people flee back to the ‘basics’, e.g. the spiritual/religious sphere to escape this ‘materialistic’ world. And there is nothing at all wrong with that, as long as they don’t try and impose their ‘coping strategies’ on others, and accept that it’s nothing more than that - /their/ coping mechanism. Other people have other coping strategies that are just as effective and don’t make them anymore ‘shallow’, just because they are not 'spiritually bound'. I get a lot of satisfaction out of ‘nature’ as a /naturally developed/ phenomenon’, without a god, or without an inherent ‘meaning of life’. I don’t tend to (voluntarily) associate with people who get a kick out of artificially made up media hypes such as celebrity culture. Not because I condemn them - I just ain’t got much to talk to them about.

[Daz Madrigal]

As theres nothing in the post I disagree with I'll leave that one for Sandy's perusal. My only slight misgiving is that it might have been an even better idea not to have got involved in Crack addiction from the beginning but thats easy to say when you don't know the situation or environment of the person involved. For bored rock stars on long tours no-one gets too hetup about heavy drug abuse whereas if you're living on a Council Estate its frowned upon and penalised (due to the fact that they can ill afford to pay for them, unlike millionaire rock stars/celebs/actresses/models/etc.

For all those that manage their drug addictions and function perfectly well there are several others who find themselves deeply in debt, in broken relationships, having to resort to thievery to afford more drugs and in many cases either ending up with a criminal record or in prison, in which case employment when released is more hard to come by and leads to a vicious cycle that is difficult to break out of

[Daz Madrigal]

<< But, likewise, there have /always/ been counter-movements - people disputing the need for such belief systems, and their actual truth/reality, because, for various reasons, they have no personal need for them, or are not ‘prone‘ to them. Or opposition triggered by an awareness of (equally common) exploitation of such belief systems by opportunists who have a personal or collective interest to promote them. >>

Yes, of course people are often taken advantage of if the chance to pick their pockets is readily available. However, this applies equally to Plumbers, Solicitors, Politicians and every Profession you can think of. No professions pick pockets with such alacrity as those pharmacologists working for Glaxo-Smith, Piccy!

A visit to Madame Petulengro's Gypsy tent may well leave us dissatisfied and rather reluctant to 'cross her palm with silver' (although its more likely to be by Credit Card nowadays!) but at least it doesn't leave us in fear of our lives. The damage rendered by a few oddball Clairvoyants and Tarot readers is relatively painless in comparison to the deceptions and con-men peddling and array of new and untried drugs and then experimenting on an entire populace - and of children no less.

Why should they be used as guinea pigs for drugs in which horrific side effects are cleverly and cynically swept under the carpet - by scientists themselves.

Who is capable of greater harm to us?..some old woman called Mabel who thinks she can read palms or a Pharmacology Company which can leave 20% of children on addictive prescribed drugs?

[piccione]

Daz

////My only slight misgiving is that it might have been an even better idea not to have got involved in Crack addiction from the beginning…////

Well…’naturally’ it /definitely/ would have been. In an ‘ideal world’ no-one would have a ‘need’ for /any/ drugs at all....

//// For bored rock stars on long tours no-one gets too hetup about heavy drug abuse whereas if you're living on a Council Estate its frowned upon and penalised (due to the fact that they can ill afford to pay for them, unlike millionaire rock stars/celebs/actresses/models/etc.////

Yup.

////For all those that manage their drug addictions and function perfectly well there are several others who find themselves deeply in debt, in broken relationships, having to resort to thievery to afford more drugs and in many cases either ending up with a criminal record or in prison, in which case employment when released is more hard to come by and leads to a vicious cycle that is difficult to break out of.////

Yup.

////Yes, of course people are often taken advantage of if the chance to pick their pockets is readily available. However, this applies equally to Plumbers, Solicitors, Politicians and every Profession you can think of. No professions pick pockets with such alactrity as those pharmocolgists working for Glaxo-Smith, Piccy!////

Yeah but none of these pretend to have ‘invented’ our moral code and go on and on lamenting the ‘loss of morality’ and society’s ‘moral decay’’, claiming this ‘evil’ is all down to the fact that people don’t follow ‘God’s law’ anymore. I think it’s /that/ most of all that gets up people’s (non-believers) noses.

Saying that, moral hypocrisy, or ‘evil in the name of religion’ isn’t /my/ concern over religion. In fact, as a ‘detached’ non-believer, I know they are no better or worse than the rest of us, so why /should/ they be expected to not take advantage, wage wars etc when everyone else does? If religion ain’t the excuse, it’s another. It’s a /human/ trait – religion or not, just as morals and ethics are.

Consequently, /I/ don’t expect scientists to be ‘moral super-humans’ beyond moral/material corruptibility - or politicians, or plumbers....

But I certainly think there is a general /expectation/ of /especially/ the medical/scientific community to be ‘morally impeccable’, and that’s why there is such an outcry when individual cases show they are not. Cases like Shipman’s are perceived as infinitely worse than those of ‘ordinary’ serial killers, because of this underlying expectation. I wonder who is more ‘guilty’ of glorifying or idealisling the scientific/medical community: those who accept that they are ‘ordinary’ humans, all flaws included, or those who think they are, or should act like demi-gods, morally superior to everyone else.

As for pharmaceuticals: It was actually GSK’s Allen Roses who, a few years back, ‘came out’, admitting openly what was already a well-known fact in the biz – ie that over 90% of drugs only work in approx. 30-50% of patients. That’s because they often treat the /symptoms/ of an undiagnosed/undetected/unknown cause.

As with the illegal drug market, the pushing of pharmaceuticals would not be possible if there was not a readily acceptant market, with consumers who are all to happy to uncritically swallow the information they are fed. But /why/ are they so uncritical, and have such blind, deluded faith in, and such high moral expectations of the scientific/medical profession? And why is there such a desperate demand for prescribed drugs?

I tell you why. It’s a phenomenon akin to that of the ‘disease model’ of addiction: In our rich Western societies, cancer, heart-diseases etc (illnesses of affluent societies) have sky-rocketed, because people lead very unhealthy, ‘self-abusive’ life-styles, e.g. poor diet and lack of exercise. But we ain’t prepared to make the changes that could prevent, and even cure, many diseases. Instead we look at the scientific/medical community to bail us out when the sh*t hits the fan. And they are only too happy to comply, since it’s a lucrative biz – because of that demand. If a condition is ‘treatable’ with medication, that means not only a convenient, least-effort cure, but it also ‘proves’ that the individual is not to ‘blame’ for getting the disease in the first place.

Some of these ‘life-style’ impacts are not in the power of the /individual/ to change, but the /individual/ profits from their 'source' nonetheless and therefore has no real interest in changing them.

Now - who is ‘at fault’ here…? I think it’s a rather convenient symbiosis serving both interests. And it's rather ‘unfortunate’ that there are some genuine victims ‘produced’ in the process – meaning /we/ as eager consumers generating high demand are just as much to blame for the ‘20% of children on addictive prescribed drugs’ as the scientific community is.

But it's all a matter of functional perception, of course - just as drug addiction is. It is easier to blame it on the 'lack of morals' of scientists, whom 'one thought one could trust infinately', rather than admitting to one's own deficiencies.

The deliberately delusional high expectation of 'moral superiority' of scientists is motivated by pure self-interest....

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

/// The difference is, Sands, that prescribed drugs can ‘legitimise’ addictive behaviour, because the drug is ‘officially authorised’, and /not/ illegal. Prescribed drug misuse is a ‘respectable’ way of misuse/addiction, since they are ‘mainstream’ drugs, ‘socially acceptable’ even to those who condemn (illicit) drug use and addiction. This distinction makes it easier to ‘blame’ misuse/addiction on the drug and/or on the GP/consultant who prescribes them. However, the real cause for developing an addiction in the first place doesn’t lie with the drug, or the ‘prescriber’. Albeit some GPs/psychiatrists prescribe such drugs irresponsibly, ie out of professional convenience to avoid going down the ‘complicated’ route of addressing the /real/ issues, or simply because they follow a ‘prescribed’ course of action (…and not to forget that many legal drugs are ‘pushed’ by pharmaceutical companies just as illegal drugs are by the black market). Still, there are people who become addicted to over-the-counter medication, such as cough medicine, despite the fact that the vast majority of users do not. ///

Now you are being silly. You are just arguing that very addictive drugs and rarely addictive drugs are the same. You can't say that GPs routinely prescribe potentially addictive drugs to people without any thought or care for the user.

But drug dealers will not give a monkey's fart whether the user gets addicted or not (In fact they will probably welcome it).

Maybe you can't SEE any difference but I am sure others can.

/// ‘Addiction’ is on the extreme end of a continuum, and any substance/activity that is completely harmless and ‘controllable’ for one person can become ‘dangerous’ (i.e. addictive) to another, depending on the ‘proneness’ (or lack of) of the individual. In many cases, we don’t acknowledge the ‘addictive behaviour’ as a problem because it doesn’t affect us ie wider society.///

Again you completely ignore the fact that some drugs are far more addictive than others. It is true that people react to drugs differently. Some will get addicted others won't. But that is a good reason why people should not be stupid to try these drugs in the first place. Why risk a lifetime of hell for an hour's pleasure?


////On the open market the user does not have this restriction. In fact people who sell them drugs are all to keen to ensure they DO become addicted to ensure further sales.////

<<< But only those ‘prone’ to addiction (see above) /will/ become addicted. Recreational users are not ‘problem users’, albeit perceived as such by the law and by public opinion. >>>

But recreational users do not KNOW whether they are going to become addicted or not. It is like Russian Roullete. Why take the chance? Why are 'normal' people so sad they have to resort to recreational drugs to get any enjoyment out of life?

////But most users are well aware that these illegal drugs are addictive so they do have to share in the blame, unlike people who become addicted from prescribed drugs. In this case it is the GP or drug manufacturer who is most likely to blame.////

<<< See above. The premise that, unlike people who take illicit drugs, people who are addicted to prescribe drugs are ‘innocent victims’ of their addiction (i.e. of the drug) is a classic example of ‘attributional excuse’ for addiction – totally self-/deluded, yet widely accepted ‘drugspeak’ – /unfortunately/, since it is counter-productive for the addict. They are just as ‘responsible’ for their addiction as illicit drug users are – ‘responsible’ in a value-free sense btw, meaning they make a ‘choice’ derived from what is ‘right’ for them at that moment in time. >>>

Nonsense. They take prescribed drugs because they are ADVISED to take them to cure whatever problem is bothering them. They put their trust in doctors and the health system. But no 'authority' advises people to take 'recreational' drugs. In fact quite the opposite. They even bring out laws to warn people of the dangers.

The two things are like chalk and cheese.

/// Such medical definitions of ‘addiction’ are purely /functional/, in a society where addiction/drug taking overall is condemned, meaning they serve as ‘convenient’ justifications for those who ‘deserve’ escaping such condemnation. It’s interesting that the same concept is applied when kids of ‘respectable’ families become addicted to (illicit) drugs. /Then/ it’s the drug’s fault, but when some ‘low-life’ gets hooked on the very same drug, it’s /their/ ‘fault’. ///

More nonsense. All people who take illegal drugs from whatever background are as stupid as each other. In fact people from respectable families are usually tarred with a bigger brush because they have had the advantages of life and can't use poverty and bad parents as an excuse.



/// It ain’t about ‘blaming’, or ‘absolving’ though. It’s about a choice people make when it seems ‘right’ for them as the most ‘reasonable’ choice they can make in order to cope at that moment in time. ///


There is NO reason for anybody to take illegal drugs. The nearest I could come to agreeing with you is that of people who use cannabis for their painful ailments because they have been let down by the health system. That I can understand. I am all heart. No really. ;D

/// Whether /I/ think it’s the ‘right’ choice or not is irrelevant. The ‘blame’ or ‘absolution’ is imposed/given by attributional and prevalent functional perceptions of society: The law forbids illicit drug use, whereas it doesn’t prohibit prescribed drug use. In effect, the addict to prescribed drugs, especially if perceived as an ‘adapted member of society’, is ‘socially excused’ by medical explanations for their addiction. But no matter whether drugs are illegal or legal, to the //addict//, they serve the same purpose. That fact, in itself, makes neither of them any more ‘guilty’ of the potentially damaging consequences for themselves, their families and to society as it makes the driver who exposes themselves and others to the risk of being injured/killed in an accident every time they drive a car. ///

Yes it does as I have already said. With prescribed drugs people do not CHOOSE to take drugs they are advised to by 'respected' professionals (even if this respect is often misplaced) . With illegal drugs, people CHOOSE for themselves. It is their individual choice.
If GP prescribes you medicine most people will take it on trust.


/// There are many people who self-medicate on illicit drugs to avoid long waiting lists and complicated procedures (and often social stigma) of accessing highly under-resourced Community Mental Health Teams. ///

After 10 years of a Labour government and waiting times have been drastically reduced (according to Tony Blair) I think not.
If it was anything to do with waiting lists why is the problem as bad today as it was 10 years ago?

/// So under-resourced, in fact, that they only deal with ‘severe’ cases such as people with (diagnosed) schizophrenia, bi-polar etc. ///


Schizophrenia is one of the classic symptoms of cannabis use. How much shorter would these waiting lists be but for idiots who take cannabis, I wonder?


/// In fact, if everyone who self-medicated went for the legal option (CMHTs) instead, the demand would sky-rocket. If addicts try and access CMHT to escape their drug use (by addressing the issues underlying their addiction), they are referred to NHS drug addiction units, because, being under-resourced, most CMHTs refuse to work with them as long as they have a substance misuse problem (so much for the reality of dual diagnosis). They are then placed on even longer (NHS) waiting lists to access detox programmes. And that ain’t it. If they want to access rehab after detox, they have to go onto local authorities’ (social services) waiting lists. And rehabs are means-tested. //Everyone// accessing them has to make financial contributions. ///

And you want to legalise cannabis so far MORE people will become prone to schizophrenia and related problems? And waiting lists will get longer and longer. And who is going to have to pay for all this treatment? Not the cannabis taking idiots that's for sure.




/// Illicit drug use may eventually get people caught up in the vicious circle of the illegal market (i.e. expensive drugs creating a ‘need’ to commit crime etc), but users don’t set out on drug use/addiction on that premise. It is a ‘side-effect’ of the illegal market. To compare illicit drug addicts to pathological killers such as Shipman, the Yorkshire Ripper etc (because of that vicious circle they may get caught up in) is err ‘slightly’ over the top Sands ain’t it…? ///

No because I am not comparing their crimes but comparing attitudes of people like you, who use any daft thing to excuse them for their crimes apart from their innate criminality itself.

Why can't you just see that some people are just BAD? They do not always need an excuse or reason to commit crime.



/// Would they resort to illicit drug use (and committing mainly /petty/ crime) out of pure, 'innate evil’ if they could access these drugs legally/at reasonable prices? Do they become addicts under the premise of wanting to bring out the ‘killer’ in themselves…? ///

Some people do not need to take drugs to bring out their inner evil.

I never said that most people who take illegal drugs are evil. Stupid yes but not evil.

But even if they had to pay 'reasonable' (whatever that is) prices to get drugs many would still steal to get them. And but for the 'relatively' high prices of drugs there would be far more people overdosing on cheap drugs. And far more people would become ADDICTED to drugs because they would use more of them for longer periods.

Is that what you want? Cos that's what will happen.

/// Jezzzzzus!! ///

EXACTLY.

/// Illicit drug users commit crime out of desperation (as a consequence of the illegal market) – not to /deliberately/ inflict ‘evil’ on society, but in order to maintain a habit that is their life-line. ///

SOME may do so but not ALL. Many drug crimes result from people who have as much control of their brains as John Reid has of the Home Office.

Not just violent crime either but crimes like driving under the influence of drugs and killing or injuring people.

I suppose you had forgotten that.

/// How about comparing them to people who resolve to other coping strategies such as self-harm? Ah, but that doesn’t affect /you/ directly does it. And so self-harmers are /not/ ‘innately evil’...///

Drug taking does not affect me directly so what the frack are you talking about now?

And who is to say that SOME self-harmers are not evil? Many will be so but they NEED just the same help as drug addicts.

Although far more time and resources are spent on idiotic drug takers than people who self-harm. Although the two often overlap.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< But I certainly think there is a general /expectation/ of /especially/ the medical/scientific community to be ‘morally impeccable’, and that’s why there is such an outcry when individual cases show they are not. >>

No more so than anyone ouside the constraints of their profession. Historians and Philosophers are probably equally moral. The scintist has his livelihood to lose if he caught out in deception..although often a blind eye is turned as with Shipman and dodgy Plastic Surgeons, Harley Street Doctors and so forth.

Lots of struck off Doctors and Surgeons are back up and running merely years after being severaly reprimanded.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Yes, and it still is. Same with religion/religious symbolism. There are very good and convincing arguments for the advantages and positive effects of religious beliefs (or other belief systems) for ‘prone’ individuals >>

What is the Queen is not merely a symbolic figure. Great Britain wouldn't sink to the depths of the Ocean without her. We're surrounded by the symbolism. Why does the sight of an animal that doesn't even exist cause a flutter in the hearts of the Welsh..show me a picture of a Dragon and it means nothing. Show it to a Welshman and he's bending your ear about Garreth Edwards and getting all weepy eyed!