Drug Users

Started by inimalist18 pages

Originally posted by HK47
Reaction:

I predicted you would demand more definitions and ultimately ask me what was so bad about sucking cock for smack. Subjectivists are more predictable then a five year old.

Conclusion:

I don't have to answer the likes of anyone. Especialy not a troll who's just going to keep going around in circles. You show me you have something to say that's better then "define this, explain that" and I will treat you like an equal. Untill then you're just another stupid troll trying to act smart. And I have better people I could be talking too.

I'm asking you for what you mean when you say addiction...

Why is that unacceptable?

Originally posted by Schecter
lol

if you do not think in absolutes, you're a troll. hahahaha

i love it. also, dont be one of those "i refuse to lick your sack and toss your salad" trolls. i really hate them.


Statement: I am not an absolutist. I am an objectvists. The differance can be defined in the example of an orange.

An absolutist would see two oranges, and force-down the rotten orange because absolutely both are are oranges and thus must be good.

An objectvists would define the two oranges, one as good, the other as rotten, and make no attempt to rancor the laughter and assertion that someone was retarded for doing otherwise.

A subjectivists would say "how can we prove they're oranges?" and throw away a perfectly good orange along with the rotten one.

Two out of three of these people are idiots.

Which one you are you?

Originally posted by HK47
Reaction:

I predicted you would demand more definitions and ultimately ask me what was so bad about sucking cock for smack. Subjectivists are more predictable then a five year old.

Conclusion:

I don't have to answer the likes of anyone. Especialy not a troll who's just going to keep going around in circles. You show me you have something to say that's better then "define this, explain that" and I will treat you like an equal. Untill then you're just another stupid troll trying to act smart. And I have better people I could be talking too.

Connotation: You have, nor have ever had any idea of what you're on about. You have effectively lost the argument, and are just using the tactic of 'I don't have to explain myself to the likes of you!'.

Originally posted by HK47
Statement: I am not an absolutist. I am an objectvists.

Ayn Rand is spitting on you from the afterlife for this

Originally posted by HK47
Statement: I am not an absolutist. I am an objectvists. The differance can be defined in the example of an orange.

An absolutist would see two oranges, and force-down the rotten orange because absolutely both are are oranges and thus must be good.

An objectvists would define the two oranges, one as good, the other as rotten, and make no attempt to rancor the laughter and assertion that someone was retarded for doing otherwise.

A subjectivists would say "how can we prove they're oranges?" and throw away a perfectly good orange along with the rotten one.

Two out of three of these people are idiots.

Which one you are you?

oh i get it. so in other words you try to apply something which is subjective to various fruits and perform other illogical leaps in deductive reasoning in order to answer a subjective question with finality and shut everyone up? (aka 'win the thread'?) is that it?

Originally posted by Schecter
oh i get it. so in other words you try to apply something which is subjective to various fruits and perform other illogical leaps in deductive reasoning in order to answer a subjective question with finality and shut everyone up? (aka 'win the thread'?) is that it?

Observation:

The way you dodge questions you must be the one...

and when confronted with your transparent tactic of non-debate, enter 'reversal of blame'. you can dodge everyone's questions, calling them "subjectivist trolls" (WOW) and when someone turns around and ignores your idiotic loaded question you throw a pissy tantrum and post stupid pictures....is that the jist of your schtick or can we expect anything more for your grand finale?

Originally posted by Schecter
and when confronted with your transparent tactic of non-debate, enter 'reversal of blame'. you can dodge everyone's questions, calling them "subjectivist trolls" (WOW) and when someone turns around and ignores your idiotic loaded question you throw a pissy tantrum and post stupid pictures....is that the jist of your schtick or can we expect anything more for your grand finale?

Reaction:

Your tactics are nothing but infinite loops of "define and explain", it wouldn't matter how many explanations one give, you would pickout something and asked for that to be defined too. And I'd rather not spend 49 hours explaining something that you're not going to listen to anyway.

Observation:

The hive-mind attempt to singleout a poster and try to sodomize him through collective trolling is cute. Humans actually feel secure in themselves when they have other jackals hording over thier meal to make sure nobody in the pack gets hurt. Too bad the pack's loyalty is about as thick as Paris Hilton..

Originally posted by HK47
Reaction:

Your tactics are nothing but infinite loops of "define and explain", it wouldn't matter how many explanations one give, you would pickout something and asked for that to be defined too. And I'd rather not spend 49 hours explaining something that you're not going to listen to anyway.

i was not the one who asked you those questions. wa wa wa waaaaaaaaa

Originally posted by HK47
Observation:

The hive-mind attempt to singleout a poster and try to sodomize him through collective trolling is cute. Humans actually feel secure in themselves when they have other jackals hording over thier meal to make sure nobody in the pack gets hurt. Too bad the pack's loyalty is about as thick as Paris Hilton..

oh i love troll tactic #12: cry 'group think'. never gets old.
also i like this talk of sodomy. btw what are you wearing right now?

Originally posted by HK47
You show me you have something to say that's better then "define this, explain that"

Originally posted by DSM - IV
DSM-IV Substance Abuse Criteria

Substance dependence is defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:

1. Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (such as repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school; or neglect of children or household).

2. Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (such as driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use)

3. Recurrent substance-related legal problems (such as arrests for substance related disorderly conduct)

4. Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (for example, arguments with spouse about consequences of
intoxication and physical fights).

Alternatively, the symptoms have never met the criteria for substance dependence for this class of substance.

DSM-IV Substance Dependence Criteria

Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric Association) is defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring any time in the same 12-month period:

1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:

(a) A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or the desired effect

or

(b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.

2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:

(a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance

or

(b) The same (or closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.

3. The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended.

4. There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.

5. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects.

6. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use.

7. The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (for example, current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced depression or continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption).

DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence include several specifiers, one of which outlines whether substance dependence is with physiologic dependence (evidence of tolerance or withdrawal) or without physiologic
dependence (no evidence of tolerance or withdrawal). In addition, remission categories are classified into four subtypes: (1) full, (2) early partial, (3) sustained, and (4) sustained partial; on the basis of whether any of the criteria for abuse or dependence have been met and over what time frame. The remission category can also be used for patients receiving agonist therapy (such as methadone maintenance) or for those living in a controlled, drug-free environment.

does this suit you as a decent enough interpreatation of addiction?

What issues do you take with it?

Statement:

I have no issues with it. As I said, drugs should be legal. Why do you think it's called dope? It weedsout the dopes.

Go ahead, like up another opium pipe. Hopefuly you won't wakeup this time.

RK47, do you realise that all this 'reaction:' shit is used to plan a persuasive answer? You're not supposed to include it in your final piece.

ok, for narcotic I have this one from dictionary.com (i think, answers.com dictinary section)

nar·cot·ic (när-kŏt'ĭk)

n.
1 An addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and behavior, and usually induces sleep or stupor. Natural and synthetic narcotics are used in medicine to control pain.

2 A soothing, numbing agent or thing: “There was the blessed narcotic of bridge, at the Colony or at the home of friends” (Louis Auchincloss).

adj.

1 Inducing sleep or stupor; causing narcosis.

2 Of or relating to narcotics, their effects, or their use.

3 Of, relating to, or intended for one addicted to a narcotic.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, for narcotic I have this one from dictionary.com (i think, answers.com dictinary section)

nar·cot·ic (när-kŏt'ĭk)

n.
1 An addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and behavior, and usually induces sleep or stupor. Natural and synthetic narcotics are used in medicine to control pain.

2 A soothing, numbing agent or thing: “There was the blessed narcotic of bridge, at the Colony or at the home of friends” (Louis Auchincloss).

adj.

1 Inducing sleep or stupor; causing narcosis.

2 Of or relating to narcotics, their effects, or their use.

3 Of, relating to, or intended for one addicted to a narcotic.


Observation: Good for you, you can read. We can now assert that you atleast have the intelligence of a twelve year old.

I was actually making sure that the definition worked for you, as most intellectual people try to do while discussing, seeing as they normally don't want to get caught up in the semantics of a debate. I would normally rather debate things with people along their lines of definition, especially when they are as skewed as yours are for drugs, but it really did require me to get some grounding of these terms before we could further discussion.

Is the legality of a substance to you an important quality of it being a drug? I know I shouldn't ask you to explain things, heaven forbid, but maybe you could give me more information on what you mean when you say a drug is something that causes people in authority to be uncomfortable?

Its funny, cannabis is used medicaly by thousands of people all over the world to ease pain, help with insomnia, nausea and quite a few different problems and is more effective than prescribed drugs due to no side effects. However priests and mothers don't like it so it must be evil and for retards with 10 I.Q. My gran used to make cookies with it to help with her arthritis as drugs given to her by the doctors had terrible side effects and where inefective to say the least. She told me cannabis completley numbed the pain and allowed her to take her dog for a walk (amongst other things), some thing she couldn't do for years due to arthritis.

Originally posted by Magee
Its funny, cannabis is used medicaly by thousands of people all over the world to ease pain, help with insomnia, nausea and quite a few different problems and is more effective than prescribed drugs due to no side effects. However priests and mothers don't like it so it must be evil and for retards with 10 I.Q. My gran used to make cookies with it to help with her arthritis as drugs given to her by the doctors had terrible side effects and where inefective to say the least. She told me cannabis completley numbed the pain and allowed her to take her dog for a walk (amongst other things), some thing she couldn't do for years due to arthritis.

The problem with Cannabis is however that it intoxicates you making you somewhat unable to participate in society at that moment. Some other medications don't have that side effect.

I do however agree with you that it's a good medicine for a lot of people. It should probably be given out easier for most people, but over here that already happens a lot so I can't really judge how much it's given as a medical treatment.

Originally posted by Fishy
The problem with Cannabis is however that it intoxicates you making you somewhat unable to participate in society at that moment. Some other medications don't have that side effect.

I do however agree with you that it's a good medicine for a lot of people. It should probably be given out easier for most people, but over here that already happens a lot so I can't really judge how much it's given as a medical treatment.

In small amounts cannabis can make you very sociable, happy and a few hits of a blunt is one of the best ways to relieve stress. In larger quantities smoked in joints then yea I agree It does some what hinder your social skills and the like.

Alcohol dependency does exactly the same thing though.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
RK47, do you realise that all this 'reaction:' shit is used to plan a persuasive answer? You're not supposed to include it in your final piece.

I fail to see the point of including it in any piece.