What’s so great about drugs?

Popstar George Michael has been arrested and cautioned after being found once again slumped over the wheel of his car in London and in possession of cannabis, British media said on Monday.”

What the hell is wrong with the world? I don’t understand why a successful, rich (and possibly otherwise healthy) person needs to take drugs and get high. Why? What are his problems and needs to use drugs to hide away from?

Personally, I have never used drugs in my life. Maybe I am the one who’s missing out, but honestly, I doubt it. Except some good food I have no other attachments to “things”. I don’t smoke, I don’t drink alchohol and heck, I don’t even drink coffee. I am not a health fanatic, it’s just that I never learned to do these things — I never needed them. And if you got me to wear the same two pairs of jeans for a year, I would just say “whatever”. I just don’t care about “stuff” (and that’s why I don’t fit well with the rest of the Greek women).

As long as I have my health (which I don’t), every other pleasure in life is just a luxury. And I can live without luxuries, as I have already done so for the first 20+ years of my life. If only I was more healthy…

Post a comment »

KCorax wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 1:59 AM PST:

> What makes you so sure that natural drugs weren’t put on earth FOR us to use?

This implies the existance of a conscient god, an idea with which Eugenia is completely incompatible.

> Isn’t it kind of arrogant to assume you know better without any experience here at all?

Have you tried putting your hands in fire to feel pleasure ? Fire is very much natural and the pain will cause endorphine secretions that will trigger a lasting afterglow !
It doesn’t matter if you won’t be able to hold an object for some time. Also, while in the fire all the mundane earthly problems will seem far far away.

You really have to try before condemning the idea.


Tom wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 2:01 AM PST:

Adam, either Eugenia or George Michael was recently found slumped over the wheel of their car in London, in what we can assume was a completely avoidable case of drug use. The other has never tried them, and we can assume that whatever car accidents they get into could not have been easily avoided. Who would you rather pass on the highway?


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 4:25 AM PST:

As with everything, it’s all about moderation. Moderation is the key word in everything.

I am addicted to coffee and I regularly drink. I have never smoked in my life, not even a single breath, nor have I ever done any drugs of any kind (in the legal sense, alcohol is not a drug).

The key word is moderation. As long as you set some ground rules for yourself, and strictly abide by them, there is no problem or danger or whatsoever. For instance, I do not drink and drive. Not even a single drop of alcohol will enter my body if I have to drive afterwards. Even though one glass is legally allowed, I won’t do it. End of story. I have never broken this rule.

Another example is when and how you drink what. When I go out to a bar or a pub, my drinking habits are *completely* different than when I am sitting at home with a few friends, knowing I’ll stay the night. In the latter case, I drink a lot and fast, in the former case, I drink at a slow pace, and usually switch between alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages because when I go out, th epurpose is to have a good time (NOT to get drunk); when I’m with a group of friends at one of their homes, it might be our goal to get drunk and act like complete idiots.

Another important personal rule is that I *never* drink alone. NEVER EVER.

It’s easy to just try nothing new, nothing exciting, and then point out those that do as being irresponsible and stupid. Especially here in the western world, where the toxix fumes from cars are way more deadly than either of those. I always find it kind of hilarious people dare to call me irresponsible for making a parachute jump; after which they step into their cars and drive off, not knowing driving is one of the most dangerous activities you can participate in.

Moderation is the key word. As long as you know what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, there’s little in the sense of hurting others or yourself. It is NOT my problem that a tiny percentage of people (e.g. George Michael) are too dumb to moderate their usage of certain substances; I enjoy my alcohol/coffee/driving/other “dangerous” activities, and no one is bothered by them, so get off my back, and leave me be. I am not made to sit at home all day being scared of everything, pathologically afraid I might hurt mysekf. Life is too short for that.

Ergo, I agree with Adam here.


memson wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 4:59 AM PST:

Good old Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou does it again.


Adam wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 6:23 AM PST:

Have you tried putting your hands in fire to feel pleasure ? Fire is very much natural and the pain will cause endorphine secretions that will trigger a lasting afterglow !

Bah, that’s weak. Both opiates and cannibis are are obviously used for medical reasons in parts of the world. So the question is where we draw the ARBITRARY line between good drugs and bad drugs. And the fact remains that it IS arbitrary. I’d argue that alcohol is worse (more destructive and unhealthy) that marijuana.

Burning yourself causes pain and the risk of infection. It doesn’t appear to have any positives.

So that metaphor is flawed.


Tom wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 7:00 AM PST:

I forgot a note about moderation and control in my comment; Thom put that very well.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 7:14 AM PST:

> How can you comment knowledgably on drugs if you have no experience with them whatsoever?

I don’t need to start whipping myself in the ass to find out that it hurts. I am 150% against “recreational” drugs and I feel PITTY about those who use drugs and can’t get out of it. Any kind of attachment is bad because the person can’t be really free. That’s the end of it.

> The key word is moderation.

Moderation about some wine (or some good Belgian ale), or some coffee, sure. But moderation about drugs is out of the question. NO drugs at all, ever, except for medical reasons.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 7:31 AM PST:

NO drugs at all, ever, except for medical reasons.

Yeah well I find fun in life important, and if it takes a few glasses of Martini to get me that fun… Then so be it. Just don’t try to make it seem as if because of that I’m somehow a lesser person.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 7:36 AM PST:

Thom, don’t get into my nerves again. READ before you reply, or don’t reply. I very well explained that “drinking socially” sometimes, is not that bad (although it still is). But I am talking about DRUGS here. I don’t put real drugs in the same category as alcohol, even if they might be (or not) related chemically.


Adam wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 7:58 AM PST:

But I am talking about DRUGS here.

That’s ridiculous. What consititutes a “drug” by your definition? Tylenol? Aspirin? Those are synthetic. How about caffeine? Nyquil causes a high in many people. Shoudl we outlaw it? Chocolate causes your brain to react – is that a drug? How about running? Running pumps adrenaline and LOTS of poeple are addicted to exercise, is that a drug?

Cannibis grows naturally, much like a strawberry. So what makes it a drug? Only our completely arbitrary governmental definition, that’s ALL. By the way, many people use marijuana for medical purposes, and many people abuse many over-the-counter drugs. How can you make a clear cut statement with that information out there?

Your matter of fact “that’s the end of it” is the way people who won’t listen to reason end an argument without presenting any evidence. It’s silly. You’ve drawn the line and then used it as part of your argument.

All I’m trying to say is that the world isn’t black and white, Eugenia, and you have no idea what you’re talking about; you just have what you’ve read, and what you’ve read is biased. It doesn’t make you an expert. Every single debate doesn’t have to end with you taking a hard stance and yelling at your detractors. Accept some gray space in the world and you’ll live in much more peace.


Adam wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 7:59 AM PST:

Eh… just re-read the above. Didn’t intend it to sound so harsh.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 8:10 AM PST:

Adam, you are now playing devil’s advocate. When I talk about drugs, I am talking about recreational drugs and I don’t f*cking care if they grow naturally, because what you DO with them is what matters. There is absolutely NO REASON for someone to take cocaine, or to take speed, or to take any other such drug. These are the drugs I am against for, except if they are used for medical reasons, under a doctor’s perscription.

>All I’m trying to say is that the world isn’t black and white,

My world IS black and white when it comes to such drugs. If my kid ever uses such drugs to get high he/she will be sorry for the day he/she was born. That’s all I have to say about this.


Adam wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 8:22 AM PST:

I’m NOT playing devil’s advocate. I believe drugs should be legal. Most natural drugs are not as addictive as people think, and if we (the government and media) didn’t create this irrational fear about them, we wouldn’t have people who have never seen a drug in their life championing against them like it was their crusade. Through history, many cultures have used many drugs without resorting to the junkie nonsense we see around us today.

Kids try drugs and realize their parents and teachers have been bullshitting them the whole time and that they are mostly harmless. If you’re not a weak willed person who lets himself get sucked in, it’s a phase. Not unlike someone who over-eats. It’s about moderation and self-control. Just look around and see how well we’re doing at preventing alcohol abuse. Looks like the “aim for 100% non-use” method is doing a band up job [/sarcasm].

If your child is raised in the US, statistics suggest that he or she will probably try pot at least once, and I’d bet he enjoys it and then realizes you’re preaching from an empty podium, like most kids do of their parents.

It’s part of life – being rebelious and trying things because growing up is about curiosity and testing the boundaries. This is part of what creates a fulfilling existence. You were curious about computers and OSes. I’m kind of surprised you are so insistant that you are right, because it reeks of passing judgment on those around you.

If parents were honest with their children about drugs, they’d go much further in preventing a problem before it starts. And that’s all I have to say about that.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 8:31 AM PST:

>If parents were honest with their children about drugs

Oooh, yes, the parents have an agenda now against their kids. Give me a break Adam.

>I believe drugs should be legal.

I never said otherwise. I just don’t like seeing people using them and I sure as hell won’t use them! Other than some sporadic social drinking I am against this kind of “recreation”. I don’t think it’s normal, I don’t think it’s natural and I don’t think it’s good for any person to use drugs.


Adam wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 8:46 AM PST:

Oooh, yes, the parents have an agenda now against their kids. Give me a break Adam.

That’s silly. Parents don’t have “an agenda against their kids.” They just spit out the same rhetoric people told them.

I don’t think it’s normal, I don’t think it’s natural and I don’t think it’s good for any person to use drugs.

And that’s all it is. Your opinion, based on only the skewed observations provided to you.

This argument reminds me of this, scene mere minutes ago on digg.com. These parents want to ban a book, considered one of the cornerstones of modern literature, because it contains some words they don’t like. But have they read it? Of course not! They don’t even really know what they are carrying on about.

When you take a hard line position on something publically, you’d better have either the knowledge to back it up or the expectation that people will call you out.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 8:54 AM PST:

From wikipedia:

“A distinction must be made between (recreational) drug use and drug abuse, although there is much controversy on where the dividing line lies on the spectrum from a drug user to a drug abuser. Some say that abuse begins when the user begins shirking responsibility in order to afford drugs or to have enough time to use them. Some say it begins when a person uses “excessive” amounts, while others draw the line at the point of legality, and others believe it amounts to chronic use when mental and physical health begin degenerating in the user. Some think that any intoxicant consumption is an inappropriate activity.”

I am one of those who “think that any intoxicant consumption is an inappropriate activity”. I am simply against any useless, on-purpose alteration of the “brain status” of a person (that usually IS harmful over long periods of time, even if the drug used is not harmful when used only a few times). I just want to vomit if I see a person being high. It’s a concept that doesn’t make sense to me. AT ALL. WHY do people want to get high? Why do people don’t want to have an 100% perception of steady reality and rationality and want to see butterflies instead and look STUPID while being high? I just don’t get it.

And I surely won’t start taking drugs just to find out.


Adam wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 9:21 AM PST:

This is really a fascinating conversation.

Why do people don’t want to have an 100% perception of steady reality and rationality

I mean, really – WHO has a 100% perception of steady reality anyway? I frequently find two people have a dramatically different interpretation of even the same conversation, let alone reality as a whole. Reality IS perception, perception is reality. And while I get what you’re saying, the same premise can be said of so many things.

You know that adrenaline alters reality. As do many medical drugs. How about painkillers for an accident or anesthesia for surgery. Don’t they alter reality? How about novacaine when you get a cavity? If you are serious about “100%” reality, then surely this is unacceptable too, right? I see your point, but I argue that it’s still an arbitrary and ill-defined distinction.

want to see butterflies instead and look STUPID while being high?

That’s just too far. Nobody sees butterflies. That’s what I’m talking about when I give you a hard time. Hallucinations are almost never like that. They are just misperceptions of reality – something like the walls breathing. But then, that’s more of the propaganda you’ve been fed, which I suppose is to be expected – purple elephants and such.

Some of the greatest art in history was made by people experimenting with opium and absinthe. You want to know why? Because drugs often open you up to a whole new reality, one in which you are much more “free” than you claim you are. But then, you can’t understand this, because you haven’t experienced it. To you, this is dispicable and abhorrent. But to many, it’s preferable to the BS we deal with day after day in this “reality” we’ve created.

In a world where there’s unnecessary war, a growing distinction in class, a corrupt world power government that spies on its own citizens, can you blame someone for wanting a little escapist break from it all?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 9:30 AM PST:

>WHO has a 100% perception of steady reality anyway?

Adam, again you are playing devil’s advocate.
Between a person who doesn’t take drugs and one who does and is currently high, I can assure you that I pick the person who doesn’t take drugs to give me his idea of perception of reality.

>can you blame someone for wanting a little escapist break from it all?

YES, YES and YES. The people of each country with such problems must FIGHT back and try to bring its country back to its feet. The “corrupt government” WANTS its people to be addicted to “things” so they can never fight back. So YES, I DO blame people who want to escape the grim reality instead of fighting it as much as they can.

Artists might have created great works under the influense (”Dark side of the moon” anyone?) but if these were the times of the French Revolution, the people would be in the streets FIGHTING and the junkies would be in their hole, high, trying to “escape from it all”. It’s PATHETIC.

This discussion is over from my part. I do not accept recreational drugs for any other reason other than (prescribed) medical.


Adam wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 9:56 AM PST:

I can assure you that I pick the person who doesn’t take drugs to give me his idea of perception of reality.

You live in a fantasy world, I’m afraid. I imagine that your perception of “high” is someone completely stoned out of his gourd. Unfortunately, the world doesn’t share your “100%” point of view, and that isn’t how it works.

You may be able to spot the person tripping on acid or whacked out of heroin, but suggesting you can spot a person who is high on pot out of a normal crowd of students (or even software engineers) suggests you have no idea what you’re talking about.

The world is NOT black and white Eugenia, but you refuse to see or acknowledge that. To you, once you set your mind to something, you never back down at all, you’ll fight to the death. It’s no wonder little things upset you so much, because there’s never any wiggle room for you. You refuse to accept the fact that you may not be right, despite only knowing a part of the story. There are people out there with a LOT more knowledge here than you, yet you seem to believe you’re some sort of expert, which is condesending to most, but downright offensive to some.

The conversation may be over, but that’s mostly because you have nothing to say except “I’ve stated my point of view, and I’m right.” Until you accept that you might not be as perfect and informed as you seem to imply, there’s really no point in continuing the conversation anyway.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 10:03 AM PST:

Pot is the least dangerous “recreational” drug. But it’s NOT as harmless as you want it to be and it has its own barrage of effects too. The point remains: there is no reason to get high. Neither from pot or from a more strong drug. Stay on the ground.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 10:06 AM PST:

Eugenia, Adam can easily be proven right: we Dutch have long since had a liberal drug policy, allowing people to carry small quantities of cannibis, taking away the taboo surrounding them. What has happened? Have we gone drug crazy? Are we Dutch high all the time?

No. We have the lowest drug abuse figures and drug related crime figures in the world.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 10:10 AM PST:

Thom, again you are off topic and you are advertising The Netherlands again. I NEVER said that legalizing drugs is not “ok” (in fact I STATED the opposite above, so I think you didn’t read the whole conversation). I did say though that people should not use them. Free or not, legal or not. There is no reason for recreational drug USAGE (or abuse).


Rhyder wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 10:16 AM PST:

I disagree with you too, Eugenia.

I haven’t had an alcoholic drink in ten years. When I was younger, I used to go out drinking socially, with friends and for the most part I had a pretty good time. I just decided to stop doing it, for a variety of reasons.

I also say this as someone who lives in an area in the NE of the UK which is badly effected by hard drug use.

Personally, I can’t see any difference between taking an ecstasy tablet at a club and having a social drink in a pub. I think that there is a huge difference between drugs such as alcohol, marijuana or Ecstasy and a drug such as heroin. None of which I would use during this period of my life.

In other words, I see as completely valid the classification that exists in most people’s mind of a class of ’soft drugs’. If your rule was ‘no stimulants or mind altering chemicals of any kind’, I could see your point to some extent.

I don’t understand how some people can maintain a cynicism about the politics behind ‘the war on terror’ and yet accept without questioning ‘the war on drugs’.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 AM PST:

There is no reason for recreational drug usage.

Says who? I find there is no reason to carry guns, yet you seem to think there is.

YOU have no reason to take drugs, great, more power to you. I am very happy for you. I, however, do sometimes want to drink, and yes, even drink my ass off, because it gives me agood evening, and some of the most sincere, funny, entertaining moments in my life have happened while I and my friends were drinking.

I have been drinking since the age of 13, and during my year of being 16 I stopped drinking for one year, just for the fun of it. Did I miss it? Oh no. Would I miss if I stopped now? No, sure as hell I would not.

However, nor would I miss sitting behind my computer, nor would I miss driving my car (way more dangerous than anything else we’ve discussed here, by the way); does that mean I should stop doign them, just because they are anything but nescesary?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 10:26 AM PST:

> If your rule was ‘no stimulants or mind altering chemicals of any kind’, I could see your point to some extent.

This is EXACTLY what I said above, didn’t you read it? It was my 5th reply to the discussion. This is exactly what I advocate.

Ok, now this discussion is really over from me, it’s just that you misinterpret what I say (and you don’t even read the whole discussion) that makes me reply again and restate the same damn thing over and over again.


Rhyder wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 10:57 AM PST:

Sorry, I interpreted “Other than some sporadic social drinking I am against this kind of “recreation”.” to mean that you do that thing.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 11:03 AM PST:

I personally do not drink, no. JBQ has a beer or two per week (sometimes none) and that’s about it.

None of us drink caffeine. JBQ used to be addicted to coca-cola when he used to work at Be, Inc. in order to be able to work extremely long hours, but he fought hard and he is now addicted-free from caffeine for years. He occasionally has a small can of coca-cola when he has a deadline and needs to work late at night, but other than that, he’s clean.

We do not smoke cigarettes either. Last time I tried I was 4. I was crying to my father “me too, me too”. He gave his cigarette to me, he told me to inhale, I did so, I chocked, and since then I haven’t put it in my mouth again. I learned my lesson and I remember the event vividly. This was 29 years ago.


Adam wrote on October 2nd, 2006 at 12:56 PM PST:

Spoken like a true right-winger. How can you comment knowledgably on drugs if you have no experience with them whatsoever? How do you know he’s using it to “hiden from his problems”? What makes you so sure that natural drugs weren’t put on earth FOR us to use?

Isn’t it kind of arrogant to assume you know better without any experience here at all?


Adam wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 1:03 AM PST:

He occasionally has a small can of coca-cola when he has a deadline and needs to work late at night, but other than that

Ah, ok, so this is one of the “Eugenia-approved” drug uses. Since the crowd can’t seem to navigate around the times it’s okay to use “drugs” and the times it’s not, perhaps you can just let us know when we cross the line.

Eugenia, I tend to really admire your strong will and willingness to jab subjects head on, this is why I read your blog – but you’re wrong here, and your unwillingness to bend whatsoever when it’s obvious that EVERYONE is calling you out has damaged your overall credibility. You’ve gone from a strong-willed, tell-it-like-it-is ace to an inflexible blowhard.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 6:47 AM PST:

I am not going to change my opinion on drugs Adam. And this opinion has not damaged any credibility, it’s simply my opinion.

I have no problem people having occasionally a drink, or a coffee (or a hot cocoa drink — I have one too sometimes), but anything that goes above a normal cigarette, I have a problem with, yes. You can say whatever you want, but I believe that semi-strong+ stimultants are bad for the personality and the person itself, if there isn’t a strong medical reason to use them.

Pot *is* addictive, more than nicotine is. And it’s stronger than nicotine too. Same goes for Starbucks’ strong coffee btw, which I believe that the American government should do something more about it than they should do about pot. It’s one thing to drink a normal coffee cup once a while when you need a bit of a boost than drinking their BOMB every fucking day on the way to work.

Jay Leno had a great joke about Starbucks a few months ago. If a person buys coffee at Starbucks every working day, it’s equivelant to spending his/her kid’s college money on it.

And yes, I feel pitty for people who get seriously drunk too (even occassionally), not just for people who are high or just the real alcoholics. I just have a problem with “non-functioning” human beings.

Same way, I have a problem with vegans btw and health maniacs (the other side of the same coin). I believe a balanced life is what people should aim for. No addictions of any kind, and yet use carefully elements of the two sides when you need them — but the majority of your life must be without addictions and without overdoings. Balance is key.

I guess our difference is that we see life in a different way. I want one thing from life, you want another.


Rhyder wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 7:06 AM PST:

I was ready to leave this discussion once and for all until you said “…but anything that goes above a normal cigarette…”.

Cigarettes are discusting. I asociate with a number of working class and long term unemployed people who have to spend a significant proportion of their income to maintain their addiction to nicotene. The economic impact is, of course, acompanied by the health impact.

For one thing, if they gave up smoking, they could, within weeks, buy a second hand computer + a really good BB connection.

I honestly beleive that if I had kids, I would accept that, as teenagers, they might smoke a bit of pot and take drugs like E but I would be furious and consider myself a failure as a parent if they started smoking.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 7:07 AM PST:

>Cigarettes are discusting.

Oh, I agree alright.


Adam wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 7:16 AM PST:

Pot *is* addictive, more than nicotine is.

You’ve based this on what? You’ve already told me you have no experience here. This is my point of this conversation – that’s NOT true, and you have nothing to back that up. I know from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE. I’ve seen it, you can’t convince me of otherwise, because I’ve *actually tried them both* and seen MANY MANY people try them both. I’ve never met ANYONE addicted to pot. Everyone I know who smokes is addicted to cigarettes. To even suggest you have better insight here is ludicrous. You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it right, it just makes you insistant.

Addictions to food and caffeine are no different, but you apparently bless them for “once in a while” use. You’ve decided that some vices are OK in your book, and others aren’t, and you’ve drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. That really bothers me, because I see it as the basis for the decline of America (not to get dramatic). People start feeling empowered to voice their uninformed, media-shaped opinion and force it down others’ throats.

I want one thing from life, you want another.

That may be true, but this is certainly not that illustration. I don’t do any drugs (anymore), I drink once in a blue moon, I hate cigarettes. Please don’t extrapolate information about me or my life because I’m arguing your points. Ultimately, we’re still friends who live many of the same things. We just disagree wildly on this one point.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 7:27 AM PST:

Again, I don’t need to try it to know about it.

“According to the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, marijuana is indeed addictive.”

A quick google search reveals that most web pages that debunk the matter claim pot *is* addictive (especially when used a lot, after a period of time). Also “the most common psychological effect is called a motivational syndrome, which consists of apathy, absence of ambition and increased difficulty in long-term planning.”

Even if marijuana was not addictive, just because of its effects it’s something that I do not approve. This is my main problem with drugs, not just the addiction, but its effects to the human brain. I find it DEGRADING as a human being.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 9:35 AM PST:

Pot IS addictive, just not as bad as nicotine. At the same time, pot is also a lot more damaging to the brain than cigarettes are (cigarettes mostly affect the *body*, where pot affects *the brain*). Is pot more dangerous than cigarettes?

That depends solely on, as always, the way you use it. I will never ever in my life use it. However, if someone wants to use it, and doesn’t harm anybody while doing it, I really don’t give a rat’s ass. It is HIS life, and therefore, HIS choice. I certainly will not think less of him, or find it “degrading”.

And yes, I feel pitty for people who get seriously drunk too (even occassionally), not just for people who are high or just the real alcoholics. I just have a problem with “non-functioning” human beings.

Err… Non functioning? If me and my friends’ function at that moment is to have fun and drink beverages we really like (I actually *enjoy* the taste of many alcoholic drinks) than certainly I am functioning perfectly!

You know what I find a non-functioning human being? One that is so addicted to being online, he or she can’t go without it for even a few days, always having UMTS or GPRS connections at hand, even when on vacation. THAT is what I find a non-functioning human being.

I find it DEGRADING as a human being.

And as I just told you, I *almost* got into TWO serious car crashes today while driving to Amsterdam (both not my fault). I have NEVER been at risk of losing my life or injuring myself when I was drinking/drunk.

I was only having really good times. I don’t need your pity when I’m having FUN. It reeks of arrogance.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 9:44 AM PST:

>One that is so addicted to being online

If you think that this is me, then you are wrong. I simply have nothing better to do in a country that doesn’t allow me to work yet. Besides, this is my job (or used to be). When I am away for example I don’t give a rat’s ass about the internet.

And despite the PICTURE I have given out there, I don’t have free GPRS, so I almost never use it (only when I have to write reviews so I have to test it). It cost me $10 per 1 MB, and this is way too much to pay. But I do pay whatever I have to pay in order to get the reviews out and offer the information I must offer to my readers.

Regarding UMTS, I have never used it because none of my 3G phones actually support 850 Mhz UMTS, which is the frequency USA needs. All my 3G phones work as 3G only in Europe.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 9:53 AM PST:

And btw, another addiction that I can’t stand is serious gambling. I also play for fun when we visit Nevada, but I never spend more than 1-2 dollars — just to pass the time in these boring casinos. But when I see people betting on horses or losing whole fortunes on casinos, they make me vomit just as much as junkies do.

I guess I make some people vomit too because I look like a 70-year old gradma in terms of life ideas. But that’s who I am and as you think you should jerk it out each time you want to have fun, I like to play it safe. Again, two different life philosophies.


Stefan wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 10:06 AM PST:

“I was only having really good times. I don’t need your pity when I’m having FUN. It reeks of arrogance.”

Wow, you guys really are good friends :)


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 AM PST:

When people are stoned or a waste, yes, I pity them. These concepts are not compatible with me. And I don’t see why this is arrogance. When saying this is like agreeing that these things are bad.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 2:11 AM PST:

>is being in total control of ourselves enough of a reason to reject all experiences?

In my opinion, yes. I always play it safe. That’s me.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 3:40 AM PST:

In my opinion, yes. I always play it safe. That’s me.

Great. Luckily the rest of mankind wants to explore and take risks, else we’d still be swinging by trees.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 5:39 AM PST:

I doubt that by getting addicted to substances (or gambling) does anything for the mankind’s progression. So there is no reason for your sarcasm or your unfounded claim. Just because I am not like you and I don’t like to pour poisons in to my body does not make me a weirdo. You all are the weirdos for doing so, as far as I am concerned. Getting drunk or getting high, is a shitty, degrading thing to do to yourself. You don’t agree? Fine by me. But I have an opinion, and I stand by it, because in my mind, I know it’s the correct one.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 6:37 AM PST:

But I have an opinion, and I stand by it, because in my mind, I know it’s the correct one.

Sure. 99.99% of the world is wrong, and Eugenia is right.

That makes total sense.

Pointless discussion this, as you refuse to acknowledge the existence of grey, and refuse to be open-minded. And we all know that discussing with closed-minded people (neocons, Muslim extremists, die-hard environmentalists, the NRA) is utterly, utterly pointless.

Rests me to say that if I needed to choose between being miserably alone in my appartment, doing nothing because *god knows* what can happen, or being blushing with health, open to other ways of thinking, open to experience new things, willing to take risks and chances, I’d choose the latter… And die happy.

And am I glad 99.99% of mankind has done the same. Because yes, else we’d still be hanging from trees.


Tom wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 6:58 AM PST:

Being miserably alone in your apartment, doing nothing.

vs.

Blushing with health, open to other ways of thinking, open to experience new things, willing to take risks and chances, and dying happy.

Yeah, I imagine that if I had those options, I’d go with the latter too. Good thing that has no bearing in reality, or a life change would be in order.


Stefan wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 9:34 AM PST:

“Sure. 99.99% of the world is wrong”

So 99.99% is on crack?! Lower the dose. Or grow up, you’re halucinating already.


Kitty wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 9:36 AM PST:

Warning: long note, for anybody who has a few minutes
——————————————————-
So basically it all boils down to a personal distaste for the state of being in an altered state of conscience.
What I don’t understand is taking the state of the person (”stoned or wasted”) completely out of context. Because, you see, the difference between use and abuse is exactly that: abuse (of alcohol, tobacco, pot, chocolate, sex, internet, paragliding…) is when the activity you indulge in affects your ability to conduct other activities in some previously defined “normal” way. As you see, it’s all in the definition and the context: definition of what are for example “normal” social behaviour and an “acceptable” level of physical health. Or context, because what is normal in one context is not normal in another.
I’ll not shy from giving personal examples: I drink coffee every day. I smoked maybe 3 cigarettes in my life. I drink a glass of wine or two a few times a week when I happen to cook dinner for friends, which I like to. I smoke pot maybe once every few months, always with friends, after a dinner or at parties.
The consequences of a few beers and glasses of wine and joints? Everybody tends to speak louder, to laugh for really stupid jokes and to speak more freely. Sometimes someone even sings or two friends argue over nothing and then make peace in a minute. Someone maybe sulks or complains about failed love stories or job troubles. I’ve had people fall asleep like logs on my sofa, and snort like a coffee machine.
Would that behaviour be acceptable at an exectuive job meeting? Surely not. Would it be degrading to behave like that, say, when visiting for the first time your significant other’s parents? I think so. Is it degrading in the context of my home, among friends? Not really.
If you eliminate the context, you’re eliminating the scale of reference. You’re eliminating the way to measure things. Is a kilogram heavy or light?
But if you do, then all that is left for you to measure things is a scale you defined _for yourself_, and that’s obviously arbitrary. You’re disgusted at people willingly losing at least part of the control we have on our behaviour? You’re entitled to.
But since that’s very personal, let me play (friendly) the role of cheap psycologist. Your disgust for when others lose control seem to really be a trait of an anal/obsessive personality, of someone who is afraid of lack of control for themselves. No offence taken, I hope, if I tell you that your being picky on small tech details, your being so tranchant in every judgement you make gives me the idea of such a kind of personality.
And you’re, of course, free of being like you are, and expressing yourself. But if the only way to measure the value of choices and experiences is a gut, deep feeling that you’re not willing to analyze, and maybe to evolve yourself (as we all evolve our personality traits during our life), then what’s the point of asking for others’ point of view? When you ask ppl “what is so good in drugs” are you asking for rational answers to something in you that is irrational?
I don’t think you’ll find any answer satisfactory.
Meanwhile, a little food for thought: in my own university a study found evidence that the neurochemistry of our brain is affected in similar ways during the first phases of romantic love and in obsessive/compulsive behavioral patterns. In other words, that there’s a common chemistry beneath being “obsessed” by the object of our love, and being “obsessed” by even he weirdest little actions [1].
So, you see, love does chemically alter the functioning of our mind in a quantificable way. Does that take anything away from the experience of being in love? Does that mean that we should force ourselves away from contacts with people we like, because if we fell in love with them, then we’d be losing some of our rationality?

Closing line: is being in total control of ourselves enough of a reason to reject all experiences?

[1] http://www.biopsychiatry.com/lovesero.htm


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 11:14 AM PST:

So 99.99% is on crack?! Lower the dose. Or grow up, you’re halucinating already.

Who’s talking about crack? I’m talking about everything Eugenia deems as drugs and “degenerating”; caffeine, alcohol, you name it. Combine all those… And oh yes, 99.99% of the people uses at least something Eugenia deems as drugs and “degenerating”.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 11:21 AM PST:

And are you saying that “caffeine, alcohol, drugs, you name it” are actually GOOD? For 99.99% of the people who use that stuff daily (e.g. drinking that coffee BOMB from Starbucks daily, or getting completely drunk once or twice a week, or getting drugs or smoking daily) *IS* bad for them. Just because most people do them does not make them right for doing so. I know that you drink coffee on a daily basis and you like to get drunk sometimes, this is why you defend this position. But this doesn’t mean that what you do is actually good to your body. It’s your body and you can do whatever you want of course, but defending to ME that what you do is not bad, is laughable. You are in denial.

My opinions are never mainstream. I only do what my head says it’s right or wrong. I actually use my head rather than letting “fun” overpower it.


Edwin wrote on October 4th, 2006 at 11:59 AM PST:

Same way, I have a problem with vegans btw and health maniacs (the other side of the same coin). I believe a balanced life is what people should aim for.

Thank you for bringing veganism into the discussion which has nothing to do with drugs and/or addiction. People can go vegan for many different reasons not just health-related ones, it’s a well-balanced diet when done properly (like many other diets), and there are drug-abstaining vegans and vegans who drink and smoke pot etc.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 5th, 2006 at 12:09 PM PST:

In psychology, something’s not a personality disorder as long as it does not interfere with daily life. Same for this. My use of caffeine and alcohol does not interfere with my daily life (in the case of caffeine, it in facts IMPROVE my life as peopel who drink coffee perform better than those that do not), hence it is not a problem.

I’m also in full health, unlike you, as you pointed out in this entry. I of course could say that living a more balanced life (like I do) makes the body much more resiliant to external influences, and that by cutting yourself off from ANYTHING even REMOTELY negative, you only made your body WEAKER, and THUS lowered your health.

And are you saying that “caffeine, alcohol, drugs, you name it” are actually GOOD?

Where did I say that?

You are in denial.

About what? What am I denying? YOU are the one in denial, since you REFUSE to accept that it is PERFECTLY WELL possible to live a BALANCED life that INCLUDES moderate usage of “drugs”. Millions and millions of people prove that fact EVERY DAY.

but defending to ME that what you do is not bad, is laughable.

That’s the whole thing. My moderate use of alcohol and caffeine have NO negative side effects. NONE. Not to me, not to my friends, not to my family. So NO, the way I use this stuff is NOT BAD FOR ME.

That is NOT to say those substances are NOT BAD. Because in over use, they are INDEED bad. However, so are oranges when over used. So are bananas. So is water.

YOUR problem, Eugenia, as Adam already pointed out, is your total inability to accept that the world is not black and white, but in fact most of it is grey.

If you are indeed so worried about your health, you better start wearing air purifiers and move to an Amish place or something, where cars do not pollute your air. Also, stop driving/being driven, as that will kill you much sooner than ANY of the above mentioned drugs.

Of course you will deny that. Because driving is actually useful to you.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 5th, 2006 at 12:20 PM PST:

> (in the case of caffeine, it in facts IMPROVE my life as peopel who drink coffee perform better than those that do not)

I do agree that it does. But there is a price to pay for this. I suggest you read about caffeine and its effects. Additionally, I suggest you try to NOT drink caffeine for 1 week. Let’s see if you CAN actually do it. My mother can’t. My father can’t. My brother can’t. They are addicted to it. I can.

I much prefer to not drink caffeine (or other substances) and do a job the normal way rather than artificially boost my energy. It’s ok to do it once or twice when you really have a reason to, but drinking coffee every day, or twice a day, it’s something that I will never do. My boss can kiss my ass if he requires a “boost” out of me. I would give him the finger.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 5th, 2006 at 12:25 PM PST:

Additionally, I suggest you try to NOT drink caffeine for 1 week.

Oh no problem, I actually went without coffee for two weeks after moving to my new house, since I did not have a coffee machine yet.

Now you again.

Way to dodge answering the REAL matters in my post, by the way.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 5th, 2006 at 12:31 PM PST:

I want to stop this useless conversation. I am not changing my mind, so there is no reason to re-write things that I have already written and explained above.

My last contribution to the discussion: I don’t think that I am as black and white as you think I am. I never said for example that you should never have a drink or have a cup of coffee. But getting seriously drunk (to the point that you can’t drive) is *unacceptable* in my book, and drinking coffee on a daily basis is also unacceptable (especially if drinking Starbucks coffee which is known to be extremely strong). But an occassional coffee or drink won’t hurt anyone, in fact it might even prove useful. Regarding recreational drugs, I am 100% against them, at ALL times. I have zero tolerance regarding drugs (soft or hard).


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.