Brentastic Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 What's really, really bizarre, is that it's 2004 and Josh Gordon is still illegal in this country we call "Land of the free"! I'd like someone to explain the sense in that! After realizing their errors with alcohol prohibition, our government nipped Josh Gordon in the bud (pun intended) and outlawed it quick! What a blatant form of discrimination! How is it OK for consumers of alcohol to get as wasted as they possibly can, sometimes leading to death, and many times leading to violence, but it's NOT OK smoke Josh Gordon? I'll tell you why, it's the perception that most people have of Josh Gordon that has been forced down our throats by our "trusty" government! Propaganda served them well in the fight against "nature". Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG A Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 What's really, really bizarre, is that it's 2004 and Josh Gordon is still illegal in this country we call "Land of the free"! I'd like someone to explain the sense in that! After realizing their errors with alcohol prohibition, our government nipped Josh Gordon in the bud (pun intended) and outlawed it quick! What a blatant form of discrimination! How is it OK for consumers of alcohol to get as wasted as they possibly can, sometimes leading to death, and many times leading to violence, but it's NOT OK smoke Josh Gordon? I'll tell you why, it's the perception that most people have of Josh Gordon that has been forced down our throats by our "trusty" government! Propaganda served them well in the fight against "nature". Peace. 622105[/snapback] I agree with that completely. What's even more bizarre is that our government allows cigarettes to be made and sold. A little off the subject, but a very good debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 What's really, really bizarre, is that it's 2004 and Josh Gordon is still illegal in this country we call "Land of the free"! I'd like someone to explain the sense in that! 622105[/snapback] Aren't Josh Gordon users more likely to try harder drugs than people who drink alcohol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 What's even more bizarre is that our government allows cigarettes to be made and sold.622119[/snapback] What's even more bizarre is that people got paid bajillions of dollars (or at least their lawyers did) for doing something they knew was risky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 (edited) What's really, really bizarre, is that it's 2004 and Josh Gordon is still illegal in this country we call "Land of the free"! I'd like someone to explain the sense in that! After realizing their errors with alcohol prohibition, our government nipped Josh Gordon in the bud (pun intended) and outlawed it quick! What a blatant form of discrimination! How is it OK for consumers of alcohol to get as wasted as they possibly can, sometimes leading to death, and many times leading to violence, but it's NOT OK smoke Josh Gordon? I'll tell you why, it's the perception that most people have of Josh Gordon that has been forced down our throats by our "trusty" government! Propaganda served them well in the fight against "nature". Peace. 622105[/snapback] Here is some nature for you!!!!!!!!!!! If you are gonna legalize "nature" then you better include this!!!!!! Peace....... Cocaine is an alkaloid found in leaves of the South American shrub Erythroxylon coca. It is a powerfully reinforcing psychostimulant. The drug induces a sense of exhilaration in the user primarily by blocking the reuptake of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the midbrain. If the predictions of The Hedonistic Imperative are vindicated, then future millennia will witness what Robert Anton Wilson once called "hedonic engineering". Mature enhancements of currently drug-induced states of euphoria will be transformed into a absolute presupposition of sentient existence. Life-long happiness will be genetically pre-programmed. "Peak experiences" will become a natural part of everyday mental health. Cocaine, alas, offers only a tragically delusive short-cut. In pre-Columbian times, the coca leaf was officially reserved for Inca royalty. The natives used coca for mystical, religious, social, nutritional and medicinal purposes. Coqueros exploited its stimulant properties to ward off fatigue and hunger, enhance endurance, and to promote a benign sense of well-being. Coca was initially banned by the Spanish. In 1551 the Bishop of Cuzco outlawed coca use on pain of death because it was "an evil agent of the Devil". The noted 16th century orthodox Catholic artist Don Diego De Robles declared that "coca is a plant that the devil invented for the total destruction of the natives." But the invaders discovered that without the Incan "gift of the gods", the natives could barely work the fields - or mine gold. So it came to be cultivated even by the Catholic Church. Coca leaves were distributed three or four times a day to the workers during brief rest-breaks. Returning Spanish conquistadores introduced coca to Europe. Even Shakespeare may have smoked it - and inhaled. The coca plant is perishable and travels poorly. Yet coca was touted as "an elixir of life". In 1814, an editorial in Gentleman's Magazine urged researchers to begin experimentation so that coca could be used as "a substitute for food so that people could live a month, now and then, without eating..." The active ingredient of the coca plant was first isolated in the West by the German chemist Friedrich Gaedcke in 1855; he named it "Erythroxyline". Albert Niemann described an improved purification process for his PhD; he named it "cocaine". Sigmund Freud, an early enthusiast, described cocaine as a magical drug. Freud wrote a song of praise in its honour; and he practised extensive self-experimentation. To Sherlock Holmes, cocaine was "so transcendentally stimulating and clarifying to the mind that its secondary action is a matter of small moment". Robert Louis Stephenson wrote The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde during a six-day cocaine-binge. Intrepid polar adventurer Ernest Shackleton explored Antarctica propelled by tablets of Forced March. Doctors dispensed cocaine as an antidote to morphine addiction. Unfortunately, some of their patients made a habit of combining both. Cocaine was soon sold over-the-counter. Until 1916, one could buy it at Harrods: a kit labelled "A Welcome Present for Friends at the Front" contained cocaine, morphine, syringes and spare needles. Cocaine was widely used in tonics, toothache cures and patent medicines; in coca cigarettes "guaranteed to lift depression"; and in chocolate cocaine tablets. One fast-selling product, Ryno's Hay Fever and Catarrh Remedy ("for when the nose is stuffed up, red and sore") consisted of 99.9 per cent pure cocaine. Prospective buyers were advised - in the words of pharmaceutical firm Parke-Davis - that cocaine "could make the coward brave, the silent eloquent, and render the sufferer insensitive to pain". When combined with alcohol, the cocaine alkaloid yields a further potently reinforcing compound, now known to be cocaethylene. Thus cocaine was a popular ingredient in wines, notably Vin Mariani. Coca wine received endorsement from prime-ministers, royalty and even the Pope. Architect Frédérick-Auguste Bartholdi remarked that if only he had used Vin Mariani earlier in his life, then he would have engineered the Statue of Liberty a few hundred meters higher. Coca-cola was introduced in 1886 as "a valuable brain-tonic and cure for all nervous afflictions". Coca-cola was promoted as a temperance drink "offering the virtues of coca without the vices of alcohol". The new beverage was invigorating and popular. Until 1903, a typical serving contained around 60mg of cocaine. Sold today, it still contains an extract of coca-leaves. The Coca-Cola Company imports eight tons from South America each year. Nowadays the leaves are used only for flavouring since the drug has been removed. A coca leaf typically contains between 0.1 and 0.9 percent cocaine. If chewed in such form, it rarely presents the user with any social or medical problems. Indeed coca-chewing may be therapeutic. When the leaves are soaked and mashed, however, cocaine is then extracted as a coca-paste. After the organic solvent used has evaporated, the coca-paste is 60 to 80 per cent pure. It is usually exported in the form of the salt, cocaine hydrochloride. This is the powdered cocaine most common, until recently, in the West. Drug testing for cocaine aims to detect the presence of its major metabolite, the inactive benzoylecgonine. Benzoylecgonine can be detected for up to five days in casual users. In chronic users, urinary detection is possible for as long as three weeks. Yet old-fashioned cocaine hydrochloride still wasn't good enough. Sensation-hungry thrill-seekers have long sought the ultimate high from the ultimate "rush". They haven't been satisfied with the enhanced mood, sexual interest, self-confidence, conversational prowess and intensified consciousness to be derived from just snorting cocaine. Normally, only the intravenous route of administration could be expected to deliver the more potent and rapid hit they have been seeking. Yet there are very strong cultural prejudices against injecting recreational drugs. So a smokeable form was developed. Since the hydrochloride salt decomposes at the temperature required to vaporise it, cocaine is instead converted to the liberated base form. Initially, "free-base" cocaine was typically produced using volatile solvents, usually ether. Unfortunately, this technique is physically dangerous. The solvent tends to ignite. Hence a more convenient method of producing smokeable free-base became popular. Its product is crack. To obtain crack-cocaine, ordinary cocaine hydrochloride is concentrated by heating the drug in a solution of baking soda until the water evaporates. This type of base-cocaine makes a cracking sound when heated; hence the name "crack". Base-cocaine vaporises at a low temperature, so it can be easily inhaled via a heated pipe. Crack-cocaine delivers an intensity of pleasure completely outside the normal range of human experience. It offers the most wonderful state of consciousness, and the most intense sense of being alive, the user will ever enjoy. (S)he will access heightened states of being whose modes are unknown to chemically-naïve contemporaries. Groping for adequate words, crack-takers sometimes speak of the rush in terms of a "whole-body orgasm". Drug-naive virgins - slightly shop-soiled or otherwise - cannot be confident (unless in thrall to ill-conceived logical behaviorist theories of meaning) that they have grasped the significance of such an expression. For to do so, it would be necessary to take the drug via its distinctive delivery-mechanism oneself. This is at best very imprudent. Ultimately, the emotional baseline, and affective analogue of Absolute Zero, characteristic of post-humanity in its hedonically enriched modes of awareness may be greater than anything we can now grasp. It may be higher than the rapturous transports of the most euphoric coke-binge in paleo-human history. In the meantime, a drug which induces a secular parody of Heaven commonly leads the user into a biological counterpart of Hell. When Is It Best To Take Crack Cocaine? As a rule of thumb, it is profoundly unwise to take crack-cocaine. The brain has evolved a truly vicious set of negative feedback mechanisms. Their functional effect is to stop us from being truly happy for long. Nature is cruelly parsimonious with pleasure. The initial short-lived euphoria of a reinforcer as uniquely powerful as crack will be followed by a "crash". This involves anxiety, depression, irritability, extreme fatigue and possibly paranoia. Physical health may deteriorate. An intense craving for more cocaine develops. In heavy users, stereotyped compulsive and repetitive patterns of behaviour may occur. So may tactile hallucinations of insects crawling underneath the skin ("formication"). Severe depressive conditions may follow; agitated delirium; and also a syndrome sometimes known as toxic paranoid psychosis. The neural aftereffects of chronic cocaine use include changes in monoamine metabolites and uptake transporters. There is down-regulation of dopamine D2 receptors to compensate for their drug-induced overstimulation. Thus the brain's capacity to experience pleasure is diminished. The social consequences of heavy cocaine use can be equally unpleasant. Non-recreational users are likely eventually to alienate family and friends. They tend to become isolated and suspicious. Most of their money and time is spent thinking about how to get more of the drug. The compulsion may become utterly obsessive. The illusion of free-will is likely to disappear. During a "mission", essentially a 3-4 day crack-binge, users may consume up to 50 rocks a day. To obtain more, crack-addicts will often lie, cheat, steal and commit crimes of violence. Once-loved partners and children may be callously cast aside. Whole communities can be disrupted by crack-abuse. Whereas "empathogens" such as MDMA / Ecstasy - which trigger the release of more serotonin than dopamine - will typically promote empathy, trust, compassionate love and sociability, "dopaminergic" drugs such as cocaine or amphetamines, if taken on their own and to excess, can easily have the reverse effect. This story has complications - cocaine's affinity for the serotonin transporter is actually greater than for the dopamine transporter. But simplistically, cocaine tends to be a "selfish" drug. There is perhaps a single predictable time of life when taking crack-cocaine is sensible, harmless and both emotionally and intellectually satisfying. Indeed, for such an occasion it may be commended. Certain estimable English doctors were once in the habit of administering to terminally-ill cancer patients an elixir known as the "Brompton cocktail". This was a judiciously-blended mixture of cocaine, heroin and alcohol. The results were gratifying not just to the recipient. Relatives of the stricken patient were pleased, too, at the new-found look of spiritual peace and happiness suffusing the features of a loved one as (s)he prepared to meet his or her Maker. Drawing life to a close with a transcendentally orgasmic bang, and not a pathetic and god-forsaken whimper, can turn dying into the culmination of one's existence rather than its present messy and protracted anti-climax. There is another good reason to finish life on a high note. In a predominantly secular society, adopting a hedonistic death-style is much more responsible from an ethical utilitarian perspective. For it promises to spare friends and relations the miseries of vicarious suffering and distress they are liable to undergo at present as they witness one's decline. A few generations hence, the elimination of primitive evolutionary holdovers such as the ageing process and suffering will make the hedonistic death advocated here redundant. In the meanwhile, one is conceived in pleasure and may reasonably hope to die in it. America does have a drug problem, instead of trying to fight the drug lords off why not fight the users! 3 strikes and you die. LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND. If there is no demand then the supply goes away! Edited December 20, 2004 by LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Aren't Josh Gordon users more likely to try harder drugs than people who drink alcohol? 622139[/snapback] Only the dumb ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joessfl Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe, that was quite an eye opener. Scary but educational...does it somewhere say where you got the info? I'd appreciate the reference/link to pass on to others or just for future reference. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 The first mistake here is to discuss and compare Williams' decision making to that of a rational person. He has at least one diagnosed mental illness, social anxiety disorder, and quite likely suffers from several other disabilities. People with mental illnesses don't make rational decisions. There are other clear signs of problems that are very typical amoung the emotionally disturbed, such as his appearance. Mental illness carries a terrible stigma, while it is usually just a chemical imbalance in the brain. Even common maladies as clinical depression are misunderstood. It's no different than when another body organ fails to operate as designed. To attempt to judge the actions of someone who is mentally ill against normal behavior is misguided. The fact that he is getting so much attention in the public spotlight is not helping this man. If he were my son, or in my family, I would be very worried about him, and would do all I could to get him into treatment. I can easilly see where he may write a very tragic end to his own story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe, that was quite an eye opener. Scary but educational...does it somewhere say where you got the info? I'd appreciate the reference/link to pass on to others or just for future reference. Thanks! 622205[/snapback] link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG A Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Aren't Josh Gordon users more likely to try harder drugs than people who drink alcohol? 622139[/snapback] Pot and Booze are both considered "gateway" substances. Think about it, do people do stupid things when they are drunk? I would bet that 90% of our prisons our people who got drunk or high or both and did something completely stupid. The biggest irony in our society is that we embrace alcohol only because it is legal and yet we spend countless billions on the war on drugs. A war that cannot be won IMO. Which one is more evil? In the end all we can do is teach our children to respect themselves and to stear clear from mind altering substances. A daunting task considering the billions spent on advertising alcohol. What a friggen joke. I am off my soap box. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 link 622226[/snapback] We all know drugs are harmful, and yes, cocaine is natural too. However, I don't think anyone can argue that cocaine is any worse than alcohol. Alcohol kills, severely impairs judgement and ruins lives just as much as cocaine. That is why it's ridiculous to allow one while trying to eliminate others. In fact, I would argue that anyone is entitled to consume whatever they want as long as they are not harming others. If you consider it this way, Alcohol would be illegal and pot would be legal. Alcohol stimulates violence and diminishes morals while Josh Gordon invokes thinking and enhances awareness. You don't ever hear about people getting high and beating their wife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down Goes Frazia Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 What did he do with the 8+ Million dollar roster bonus in 2 months? Funny, he retired like a month after getting the roster bonus! And now, doesn't have it! 621726[/snapback] Josh Gordon ain't cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 We all know drugs are harmful, and yes, cocaine is natural too. However, I don't think anyone can argue that cocaine is any worse than alcohol. Alcohol kills, severely impairs judgement and ruins lives just as much as cocaine. That is why it's ridiculous to allow one while trying to eliminate others. In fact, I would argue that anyone is entitled to consume whatever they want as long as they are not harming others. If you consider it this way, Alcohol would be illegal and pot would be legal. Alcohol stimulates violence and diminishes morals while Josh Gordon invokes thinking and enhances awareness. You don't ever hear about people getting high and beating their wife. 622657[/snapback] Me personally, when I drink (which is few and far between) I dont beat anything or anybody......you ask my wife!!!! what I like to do when I'm drunk or close to being drunk, I have a daughter named Ciara that is living proof that when drunk (tequila at that) that I dont fight I &*@$....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Alcohol stimulates violence and diminishes morals while Josh Gordon invokes thinking and enhances awareness.622657[/snapback] Coming from a completely unbiased POV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Coming from a completely unbiased POV 622669[/snapback] lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 "The sad thing is he looks in shape and like he could run over anything in his way." actually he looked no way near in good enough shape to play, in my opinion guy hasnt lifted a weight in god knows how long.obviously as evidenced by Herschel Walker you can stay in great shape with polykinetics(pushups and situps) but I doubt hes doing much of those either. he might even be fasting. I thought he looked small Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted December 20, 2004 Author Share Posted December 20, 2004 However, I don't think anyone can argue that cocaine is any worse than alcohol. 622657[/snapback] Are you serious? I don't even think that statement warrants an argument...if you've ever had any experience with alcoholics or narcotic addicts (and I'm not implying that you haven't...I don't know), you'd either be insane or just not paying attention to think that cocaine isn't more harmful than alcohol. I'm not saying alchohol isn't damaging, and alcoholism may indeed be a more widespread problem in our society than cocaine, but there is no comparison between the addictive natures or damage that can come from the two. I doubt many people have ever prostituted themselves out for alcohol...the same cannot be said for cocaine, men and women both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 " I doubt many people have ever prostituted themselves out for alcohol...the same cannot be said for cocaine, men and women both. " you can get drunk off a 5 dollar 18 pack or a cheap bottle of vodka or whatever you wish...you cannot get a gram of cocaine for less than 50 dollars really.. I also think most people that use cocaine..are also drinking during their usage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 We all know drugs are harmful, and yes, cocaine is natural too. However, I don't think anyone can argue that cocaine is any worse than alcohol. Alcohol kills, severely impairs judgement and ruins lives just as much as cocaine. That is why it's ridiculous to allow one while trying to eliminate others. In fact, I would argue that anyone is entitled to consume whatever they want as long as they are not harming others. If you consider it this way, Alcohol would be illegal and pot would be legal. Alcohol stimulates violence and diminishes morals while Josh Gordon invokes thinking and enhances awareness. You don't ever hear about people getting high and beating their wife. 622657[/snapback] Let me use the term "getting high" Getting high on PCP, Meth, Coke, etc Makes you feel like you are Mike Tyson(in his prime fo course) and bullet proof!!!!! So as to the wife beating these drugs take people to much furture extremes.....If some or all drugs are legalizied ONLY time will tell as to the affects on society.....So IMO if alcohol is the "measuring tape" we are going to use I say keep ALL illegal drugs ILLEGAL!!!!! It is hard enough to keep drunks under control, so why in world give the population more choices of ways they can lose control??? This is coming from a father of 2 with 2 step children as well, who did use/sample drugs in his youth, and if not for a very close "best" friend, I probaly would have lost my life to meth............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down Goes Frazia Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 We all know drugs are harmful, and yes, cocaine is natural too. 622657[/snapback] the coca planet in natural..... cocaine is not. Just like the poppy plant is to heroin. Coke is result of using acetone, ether & God knows what other chemicals to produce it. for that matter....crystal meth is natural...... it's made & produced with Athena that's under your kitchen sink. I agree.....you can't compare the physical ill affects from narcotics to Josh Gordon..... it's apples & oranges. ..... while Josh Gordon invokes thinking and enhances awareness. ...... it certainly stimulates thinking but you'll have a hard time convincing people that it enhances awareness. Smoking a 1/2 dozen bonghits & zoning out in front of the TV isn't exactly enhancing awareness. what it does do to alotta people is make them paranoid as Athena.... maybe that's what you're getting at. Josh Gordon also raises your blood pressure considerably..... not much different than smoking grits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG A Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Are you serious? I don't even think that statement warrants an argument...if you've ever had any experience with alcoholics or narcotic addicts (and I'm not implying that you haven't...I don't know), you'd either be insane or just not paying attention to think that cocaine isn't more harmful than alcohol. I'm not saying alchohol isn't damaging, and alcoholism may indeed be a more widespread problem in our society than cocaine, but there is no comparison between the addictive natures or damage that can come from the two. I doubt many people have ever prostituted themselves out for alcohol...the same cannot be said for cocaine, men and women both. 622695[/snapback] I wonder is that would be true if you could walk to any convenience store or restaurant and order up an 8 ball. I agree that blow is more harmful than alcohol in the short term only, but alcohol is the most devastating over the long haul. I mean please, look at how many people are driving around drunk, and how many innocent people are killed by these impaired people every day. Socially accepted, you bet. Completely and udderly devastating, yes. Some may argue that they can drink responsibly, and I believe that is true. For all the people that can do that and have never encountered any alcohol related illness or don't know of any families torn apart by it, then I guess you are right to defend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted December 20, 2004 Author Share Posted December 20, 2004 " I doubt many people have ever prostituted themselves out for alcohol...the same cannot be said for cocaine, men and women both. " you can get drunk off a 5 dollar 18 pack or a cheap bottle of vodka or whatever you wish...you cannot get a gram of cocaine for less than 50 dollars really.. I also think most people that use cocaine..are also drinking during their usage 622705[/snapback] You could however get a rock of crack for $5....hence the crack epidemic of the late 80's. To compare the addicitve nature of alcohol and cocaine is simply inaccurate or misinformed...sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG A Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 You could however get a rock of crack for $5....hence the crack epidemic of the late 80's. To compare the addicitve nature of alcohol and cocaine is simply inaccurate or misinformed...sorry. 622730[/snapback] Are you kidding me? What is the difference between someone who needs to drink all day long to survive vs the coke addict? The difference is the price and availability. Alcoholics will drink perfume if they don't have money. Once the perfume is gone they will get the money some way. Some hold signs up saying "Work for food". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted December 20, 2004 Author Share Posted December 20, 2004 (edited) I'm not saying alchohol isn't damaging, and alcoholism may indeed be a more widespread problem in our society than cocaine, but there is no comparison between the addictive natures or damage that can come from the two. 622695[/snapback] I agree that blow is more harmful than alcohol in the short term only, but alcohol is the most devastating over the long haul. I mean please, look at how many people are driving around drunk, and how many innocent people are killed by these impaired people every day. Some may argue that they can drink responsibly, and I believe that is true. For all the people that can do that and have never encountered any alcohol related illness or don't know of any families torn apart by it, then I guess you are right to defend it. 622728[/snapback] Yes, cocaine is more harmful in the short term only because why? The majority of narcotic addicts either eventually get help, "age-out" or wind up dead. If you re-read the part of my statement quoted above, I agree alcohol is more widespread and prevalent...but that doesn't make it more harmful on a case by case basis. And I don't think that you are including me in the "right to defend it (alcohol)" part of your quote, but if you do and think that's what I am attempting to do, clearly you misunderstand me. I have known plenty of alcoholics and have had several friends with narcotic addictions. From my experience, both can certainly be harmful, but there really isn't much comparison between the two. Edited December 20, 2004 by Skrappy1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted December 20, 2004 Author Share Posted December 20, 2004 Are you kidding me? What is the difference between someone who needs to drink all day long to survive vs the coke addict? The difference is the price and availability. Alcoholics will drink perfume if they don't have money. Once the perfume is gone they will get the money some way. Some hold signs up saying "Work for food". 622749[/snapback] Price and availability? Trust me, maybe cocaine or crack is hard to find available where you live, but in many places that simply isn't an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.