I really cannot think of anything else to say for once I am out of words.
We are not convinced
Sorry. I have never been good with triple negatives. What do you mean by : "If not for "artifcial substances" he might not be around not to realize it's happening"?lightning wrote:Today is Ronald Reagan's 93rd birthday and this had been mentioned in the news. He no longer appears in public. If not for "artificial substances" he might not be around not to realize it's happening. Nicotine, caffeine, sugar, alcohol, laxatives, nosedrops all non-nutritive and addictive drugs. But none were associated with Viet Nam War protest or other aspects of 60's cultural rebellion. In America you can't bust people for dissent but you can bust them for possession of a controlled substance. That's how psychedelics became illegal. I learned that from a T.V. documentary . called "Grass." I don't know whether or not the Native American Church can still use peyote legally. If not, it's a violation of their constitutional right to religious freedom.
[/i]
Coco,
Are you sure I see "everything" in terms of the 60's? I told you a million times not to exaggerate! You have no idea how I see "everything". You have read only a few sentences I have posted here.
I have been taught by nutritionists to define refined sugar (white sugar) as a drug since it has no nutrititive value. Read "Sugar Blues" for more info about this.
Are you putting Leonard Cohen in jail for drugs? Are you stopping him from getting fixed on Boogie Street? And while you have him behind bars are you warning him about the perils of drug abuse as you chastise him severely restrict his right to relaxtion, enhanced sensual enjoyment and an aid to deep thought?
If so, what are you doing on his website?
Hermitage, To rephrase, the husband of Nancy "just say no".Reagan is being kept alive by drugs but is still too out of it to be able to be aware of his 93rd birthday.
Are you sure I see "everything" in terms of the 60's? I told you a million times not to exaggerate! You have no idea how I see "everything". You have read only a few sentences I have posted here.
I have been taught by nutritionists to define refined sugar (white sugar) as a drug since it has no nutrititive value. Read "Sugar Blues" for more info about this.
Are you putting Leonard Cohen in jail for drugs? Are you stopping him from getting fixed on Boogie Street? And while you have him behind bars are you warning him about the perils of drug abuse as you chastise him severely restrict his right to relaxtion, enhanced sensual enjoyment and an aid to deep thought?
If so, what are you doing on his website?
Hermitage, To rephrase, the husband of Nancy "just say no".Reagan is being kept alive by drugs but is still too out of it to be able to be aware of his 93rd birthday.
Hi Lightning,
Well sorry but that is just nonsense that sugar is a drug. Why is sugar a drug? Is it because some people eat too many cookies? A person could eat too many biscuits but that does not make flour a drug either. And how do you know that Reagan is on drugs to keep him alive? Many Alzheimers patients have nothing physically wrong with them. Their minds are impaired. You sound as though you are glad Reagan "is still too out of it to be able to be aware of his 93rd birthday".
And if Leonard (as much as I love him) were to be caught with illegal drugs and convicted...then YES!!!! He should be put behind bars. And YES I will be HAPPY to visit Leonard and scold him and warn him and help to rehabilitate him.
Well sorry but that is just nonsense that sugar is a drug. Why is sugar a drug? Is it because some people eat too many cookies? A person could eat too many biscuits but that does not make flour a drug either. And how do you know that Reagan is on drugs to keep him alive? Many Alzheimers patients have nothing physically wrong with them. Their minds are impaired. You sound as though you are glad Reagan "is still too out of it to be able to be aware of his 93rd birthday".
And if Leonard (as much as I love him) were to be caught with illegal drugs and convicted...then YES!!!! He should be put behind bars. And YES I will be HAPPY to visit Leonard and scold him and warn him and help to rehabilitate him.
This is the first time I have ever heard "drug" defined as something that "has no nutritive value". Under that definition, decaf coffee, diet soda, and iceberg lettuce are drugs, but iron supplements are not.lightning wrote:Coco,
Are you sure I see "everything" in terms of the 60's? I told you a million times not to exaggerate! You have no idea how I see "everything". You have read only a few sentences I have posted here.
I have been taught by nutritionists to define refined sugar (white sugar) as a drug since it has no nutrititive value. Read "Sugar Blues" for more info about this.
Are you putting Leonard Cohen in jail for drugs? Are you stopping him from getting fixed on Boogie Street? And while you have him behind bars are you warning him about the perils of drug abuse as you chastise him severely restrict his right to relaxtion, enhanced sensual enjoyment and an aid to deep thought?
If so, what are you doing on his website?
Hermitage, To rephrase, the husband of Nancy "just say no".Reagan is being kept alive by drugs but is still too out of it to be able to be aware of his 93rd birthday.
I know that sugar is not healthy but you can't compare its health effects with those of illegal drugs. Any parent with this kind of experience will tell you that their children using illegal drugs fared far, far worse than their than the children who had eaten too much candy.
I admit I am still confused by the connection with Reagan. Would you please explain exactly how Reagan's Alzheimer's disease ties in here? I am just not getting it.
Hermitage
OK, Lightning,
I think I understand, even though I may not share your line of logic. Reagan is wasting away, through no obvious fault of his own, from a devastating disease that destroys the brain, even though he (probably) took no illegal drugs. (And although he probably consumed alcohol, there is no evidence that there is a link between alcohol and Alzheimers.)
And I think you are also saying that while many people have used illegal drugs, some feel they were more creative as a result (though this has never been established by scientific study, with controls, etc.,), so any consequential brain or other health damage was worth it, and some users survived with no lasting negative effects, anyway.
You sound very youthful, actually. Many young people think they can do anything to their bodies and that nothing will hurt them. I think the common way of saying this is that teens think they are invulnerable. That, sadly, is the reason why so many young people smoke. They know of people who got lung cancer without ever having picked up a cigarette, and others, who, like LC (may he stay healthy and live till 120, as some friends of mine like to say), smoked "like chimneys" and never got sick. With anecdotal evidence like this, they prefer to ignore the hard evidence.
I think this is what you are doing.
Well, I hope you stay healthy too, and that you do indeed remain invulnerable. I knew many, when I was young, who were not invulnerable, and I know way too many, schoolmates of my own teenagers, who have ruined their lives, or lost their lives, as a result of drugs. The ones who are gone have no chance of ever showing their creative talents, that is for sure. Just this winter, several in my small town have died in drug related incidents. One was a heroin overdose, the others were fatal car accidents involving marijana and cocaine. Three of the dead were children of immigrants who worked hard to bring them to nice, safe, suburbs where the schools are good. But it doesn't really matter. The loss is equally great to the parents, whatever their circumstances.
I can't bear to even imagine what it must feel like to their parents and other family members.
But maybe you would say that people die in car accidents anyway, as you pointed out that Reagan, even without illicit drugs, suffered brain disease. You probably see nothing wrong with smoking, then, and perhaps you don't wear a seatbelt. (You should.)
Anyway, thanks for explaining. I see things so differently I just couldn't get what you were trying to say in your earlier postings.
Hermitage
PS There is a big difference between illegal drugs and those that are used legally for medicinal purposes. In the case of medicinal applications, there are many levels of tests that the drugs must pass before they can be made available to the public. There are also controls on the ingredients and dosing of legal medicines, which obviously is not the case on the street. So, even with the imperfections of testing within the drug industry, the power of law and liabilitly do set some standards that drug dealers wholly evade.
I think I understand, even though I may not share your line of logic. Reagan is wasting away, through no obvious fault of his own, from a devastating disease that destroys the brain, even though he (probably) took no illegal drugs. (And although he probably consumed alcohol, there is no evidence that there is a link between alcohol and Alzheimers.)
And I think you are also saying that while many people have used illegal drugs, some feel they were more creative as a result (though this has never been established by scientific study, with controls, etc.,), so any consequential brain or other health damage was worth it, and some users survived with no lasting negative effects, anyway.
You sound very youthful, actually. Many young people think they can do anything to their bodies and that nothing will hurt them. I think the common way of saying this is that teens think they are invulnerable. That, sadly, is the reason why so many young people smoke. They know of people who got lung cancer without ever having picked up a cigarette, and others, who, like LC (may he stay healthy and live till 120, as some friends of mine like to say), smoked "like chimneys" and never got sick. With anecdotal evidence like this, they prefer to ignore the hard evidence.
I think this is what you are doing.
Well, I hope you stay healthy too, and that you do indeed remain invulnerable. I knew many, when I was young, who were not invulnerable, and I know way too many, schoolmates of my own teenagers, who have ruined their lives, or lost their lives, as a result of drugs. The ones who are gone have no chance of ever showing their creative talents, that is for sure. Just this winter, several in my small town have died in drug related incidents. One was a heroin overdose, the others were fatal car accidents involving marijana and cocaine. Three of the dead were children of immigrants who worked hard to bring them to nice, safe, suburbs where the schools are good. But it doesn't really matter. The loss is equally great to the parents, whatever their circumstances.
I can't bear to even imagine what it must feel like to their parents and other family members.
But maybe you would say that people die in car accidents anyway, as you pointed out that Reagan, even without illicit drugs, suffered brain disease. You probably see nothing wrong with smoking, then, and perhaps you don't wear a seatbelt. (You should.)
Anyway, thanks for explaining. I see things so differently I just couldn't get what you were trying to say in your earlier postings.
Hermitage
PS There is a big difference between illegal drugs and those that are used legally for medicinal purposes. In the case of medicinal applications, there are many levels of tests that the drugs must pass before they can be made available to the public. There are also controls on the ingredients and dosing of legal medicines, which obviously is not the case on the street. So, even with the imperfections of testing within the drug industry, the power of law and liabilitly do set some standards that drug dealers wholly evade.
For any who may be interested, here is a Teachers Guide to what drugs of abuse do to the brain systems complete with diagrams of the areas affected. This was designed for teachers of grades 5-12 to educate kids and is from the US govt.'s NIH site (National Institutes of Health). It is very informative and painstakingly compiled from years of research.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/MOM/TG/MOMTG-Index.html
http://www.nida.nih.gov/MOM/TG/MOMTG-Index.html
Exceptions? Keith Richards is definitely an exception! He has just turned 60 and he still powers on. Driving on "heavy fuel". Many of his contemporaries have been killed by much less than Keith's diet. We all have differing constitutions. Will Keith live to be 100? Who knows?
The architect Gaudi was partial to psilocybe mushrooms. Take a look at La Sagrada Familia.
What is a drug anyway. The word is an old druidic word for dried herb. All cultures from all ages have "drugs" or non food substances as part of the culture. This demonisation and illegalisation of drugs is relatively recent in the history of our species. The abuse of substances (even sugar) is a symptom of the alienation we feel, rife among all peoples world wide and not something inherently evil in the substances that are abused. We should be counselling the abusers not making wars on drugs. You cannot cure cancer with a bandaid.
Bottoms up. Here's to a good red.
Ch ch cheeeerrsssssssss.
The architect Gaudi was partial to psilocybe mushrooms. Take a look at La Sagrada Familia.
What is a drug anyway. The word is an old druidic word for dried herb. All cultures from all ages have "drugs" or non food substances as part of the culture. This demonisation and illegalisation of drugs is relatively recent in the history of our species. The abuse of substances (even sugar) is a symptom of the alienation we feel, rife among all peoples world wide and not something inherently evil in the substances that are abused. We should be counselling the abusers not making wars on drugs. You cannot cure cancer with a bandaid.
Bottoms up. Here's to a good red.
Ch ch cheeeerrsssssssss.True. But it is only now that production and distribution methods are sophisticated and very easy thus causing much more widespread damage on a large scale (potentially an epidemic) rather than isolated and anecdotal cases.This demonisation and illegalisation of drugs is relatively recent in the history of our species.
The demonization and illegalization of slavery is also relatively recent in the history of our species.
Last edited by Kush on Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
light drugs are legal in Netherlands, and they have less hard drugs addicts than most European countries.
if cigaretes are legal - that makes it OK to smoke them, and polute the air that we all breath in bars etc?
laws are rarely written to protect us. rather to protect some interests, and therefore i only belive my own judgement - i don't smoke cigarettes, and very rarely smoke grass. and i don't give a s...t which one is and isn't legal.
if cigaretes are legal - that makes it OK to smoke them, and polute the air that we all breath in bars etc?
laws are rarely written to protect us. rather to protect some interests, and therefore i only belive my own judgement - i don't smoke cigarettes, and very rarely smoke grass. and i don't give a s...t which one is and isn't legal.
Actually, sugar is a nutrient as it provides calories (and even kilojoules). And lots of them. As a carbohydrate it is one of the four nutrients (protein, alcohol and fat included) that fuel our existence. Mmmm.
A teaspoon of sugar not only makes the medicine go down, it also delivers 16 calories....
Just because these are considered empty calories doesn't make sugar a drug. For example, I could chew on my keyboard, no nutritive value but certainly no drug...unless, I suppose, you think of the addictive powers.
I fail to see the connection between Reagans wife leading the "just say no" campaign and Reagans brain being more damaged than a drug-user. I see irony only. And it is bloody sad when you think that the risk of becoming like RR is done by choice (in taking drugs). Who knows, there is the weight of evidence which shows in most cases drugs lead to damaged health. And there are the exceptions as mentioned by others.
A teaspoon of sugar not only makes the medicine go down, it also delivers 16 calories....
Just because these are considered empty calories doesn't make sugar a drug. For example, I could chew on my keyboard, no nutritive value but certainly no drug...unless, I suppose, you think of the addictive powers.
I fail to see the connection between Reagans wife leading the "just say no" campaign and Reagans brain being more damaged than a drug-user. I see irony only. And it is bloody sad when you think that the risk of becoming like RR is done by choice (in taking drugs). Who knows, there is the weight of evidence which shows in most cases drugs lead to damaged health. And there are the exceptions as mentioned by others.