Pushing the envelope of this forum, non drum related

How is it working for you so far?

It's working quite well for all of us! We've even come to the point now and have such advanced brains that we can create whole digital worlds that link to each other and allow instant communication of data and ideas! We even have the ability over these systems, to make quite ridiculous assertions that dis-regard mountains of physical evidence!
 
Don't like something? Ban it. Nanny will protect us.

Do the lessons on history matter at all? Al Capone? Prohibition? Are we human beings with functioning long term memories and the capacity to think abstractly or are we just big, pale chimps who respond to the moment without considering the weight of history?

It's mindlessly stupid to spend millions of dollars achieving nothing - apart from lining the pockets of Mr Bigs and criminalising of otherwise law-abiding people (occasionally ruining their lives and preventing their future productivity).

Regulation rather than prohibition makes sense for soft drugs (and hard drugs like alcohol, which are too loved by ruling classes for legal changes). Prohibition is a destructive and expensive activity, which should be reserved to lethal drugs where the cost of inaction would be greater than the costs of banning.

The war on drugs has been an absolute, utter abject failure and people are still determined to make the main mistakes. Evolution certainly is a slow process.

There's actually a bit more to this history of drug laws, at least in the US. Prior to the first US laws to ban drugs in 1906, large sections of the population were addicted to morphine, opium, cocaine and other drugs. These drugs were easily available to anyone and were frequently in so-called medicines and even soft drinks - you are probably aware Coca-Cola got its name from the cocaine it used to have in it. Sigmund Freud (a European) was obviously high out of his gourd from injecting cocaine when he came up with many of his theories of the mind.

History has told us that banning and criminalizing many drugs is good public policy, so I have to question the validity of the statement that "the war on drugs has been an absolute, utter, abject failure."
 
Can we close this thread? Talking politics will definitely NOT help the environment around here. People love coming to drummer world because of the good atmosphere and helpful info, politics will only mess that up.
 
Can we close this thread? Talking politics will definitely NOT help the environment around here. People love coming to drummer world because of the good atmosphere and helpful info, politics will only mess that up.

If you don't like it, don't read it. Nobody forced you to click, or to get offended for no reason. Why do you feel that other people who can handle a bit of disagreement shouldn't be able to discuss this in the dedicated "off topic" section of the forum?
 
History has told us that banning and criminalizing many drugs is good public policy, so I have to question the validity of the statement that "the war on drugs has been an absolute, utter, abject failure."

It's extremely hypocritical to make statements like this while not advocating a ban on alcohol. It's far worse than quite a few schedule 1 drugs, as we've already discussed. In the "close to home" category here, what if Larry's stepson was hit by a drunk driver? It could possibly have been prevented if alcohol were not legal... But as we both know, that's really not a good stance. Although many many people abuse alcohol, many other people can use it responsibly, and it benefits their life to become intoxicated once in a while, even if only short-term.
 
Sigmund Freud (a European) was obviously high out of his gourd from injecting cocaine when he came up with many of his theories of the mind.

It's a shame that we are no longer privy to such inspiration due to mindless public policy.


History has told us that banning and criminalizing many drugs is good public policy, so I have to question the validity of the statement that "the war on drugs has been an absolute, utter, abject failure."

I not only stand by that statement and but I'll raise it to "the war on drugs is one of the most self defeating and self destructive policies in history". The costs in human and financial terms are astronomical. The worst thing about it are its benefits to organised crime. Govt regulation of drugs would be the most damning possible blow to the Mr Bigs and pull a great deal of money out of the black market and back into general circulation.

A war against drugs is a war waged by a country against its own citizens. It smacks of hubris and lazy thinking. Simplistic magic bullet solutions are guaranteed harbingers of misery (Hitler was the Magic Bullet Pinup Boy). Much of this comes from squeamish prudishness, our fear of looking at that which we don't like (and yet we have the gall to insult new agers for their positive thinking furphies).

We need to look at what drugs are and what they represent. So you have a sizeable population addicted to the strongest possible painkillers. Does that tell you anything? So you have people willing to risk being treated as criminals to have peak experiences. What does that tell you?

The answer is not: "THEY ARE SICK AND IMMORAL AND EVIL".

Isn't it nice? People caught in the cycle of poverty with precious few avenues of escape are even prevented from dulling the pain of their wretched existence with substances ... and then thrown into prisons where they are raped, beaten and corrupted.

Of course, if we were capable of thinking ahead and not being so reflexively fearful and selfish we could create policies that not only reduced people's desire for powerful painkillers and distractions but also reduce the motivation to become saboteurs (ie. criminals). Instead we lock 'em up, damage them further, and get them better acquainted with criminal ideas and methods. And the process of policing, courts and prisons costs taxpayers insane amounts.

People cannot readily be reduced to convenient productive units and breeding and rearing machines of other productive units (unless you find the Chinese model attractive). And some people do no kindly take to being considered "collateral damage", part of the necessary 5% of unemployed required to keep wages down.

Breeding, rearing, achievement, contribution, sports - they might make people feel fine but we generally want something more. That's why we invented the giant father figure in the sky.

Trouble is, people are growing up intellectually and most can see the obvious absurdity and bloodlessness of sanctioned religion - sing your hymns, parrot the platitudes and then viciously and guiltlessly trample everyone who gets in your way without for a moment seeing the obvious hypocrisy of their contempt for the ideals of peace and love (that's just for hippies, innit?).

There are few avenues for we skin-encased bags of slimy plasma to engage with the spirit, our higher selves. The arts are an obvious one, although opportunities to play music are restricted by work and family time pressures and professional requirements. Most artists have to stop short of truly getting their ya yas out, which is why so many use substances to get that push towards peak experiences.

Some drugs can provide a gateway for transformational experience - if used properly. Trouble is, they are rarely used properly because no one's allowed to provide that instruction. So then people wreck themselves by abusing the substances - by taking 20x times the ideal dose to achieve effects that are effectively poisoning. Then the substances are deemed evil.

// end rant
 
Can we close this thread? Talking politics will definitely NOT help the environment around here. People love coming to drummer world because of the good atmosphere and helpful info, politics will only mess that up.

Slowrocker, don't think this will spoil anything. Martin (DeathMetal) and I will continue to be good forum friends as always (see his avatar? That's from a picture I made of him). There are actually no bad vibes on this thread, just different points of view.
 
The lady has a mean right hook.

Actually, I do. At the health retreat they had an activity called "Cardio Box". I almost didn't do it but I was so miserable from nicotine withdrawal (ironic, given this thread, no?) that I tried it out.

Everyone paired off and I was left out (story of my life) and did the exercise with the instructor. She had the mitts and I had the pink gloves (yeeha). My left jab to her left mitt and my right cross to her right mitt. Then I hear bap bap bap and think "Wow, this is like drumming" and from there I was going at a fair tempo.

The best part was seeing a very girly girl doing these incredibly feeble taps at first but by the end of the workout she forgot to be girly and was punching with decent looking form and power ... as with high heels, sometimes we help society hobble us.

There's no doubt an analogy there about how we let society hobble our innate spirituality.
 
Ow - sounds painful! Why was your thumb sticking out? I would imagine your thumb would automatically tuck in.

But never tuck your thumb into the fist! That was the first thing Sally told us. Haha - boxing instructions from me - like Sticks running a course in diplomacy.
 
To the side of the fist. Never in. That would instantly break your thumb. Against the side, always.

I don't know why it was sticking out. A momentary lapse of concentration. I would imagine it had something to do with my Rugby days when I handed-off with an open palm (allegedly) but I never have worked it out. I had been sparring for a good few minutes by that point and I'm not exactly as fit as a marathon runner these days. Exhaustion? Stupidity?

I've always worked on the principle that I get one punch in a fight. Better make it a good one.
 
It's extremely hypocritical to make statements like this while not advocating a ban on alcohol. It's far worse than quite a few schedule 1 drugs, as we've already discussed. In the "close to home" category here, what if Larry's stepson was hit by a drunk driver? It could possibly have been prevented if alcohol were not legal... But as we both know, that's really not a good stance. Although many many people abuse alcohol, many other people can use it responsibly, and it benefits their life to become intoxicated once in a while, even if only short-term.

It's no more hypocritical than simultaneously supporting legalizing all drugs but banning alcohol!

We don't necessarily know if anyone involved in any particular auto accident was under the influence of cannabis (or even alcohol), so I personally will wait, and you may wish to choose that option too. Would you be open to the possibility that, if no intoxicants were involved in a particular crash, then we should take that as a validation of anti-cannabis laws? "The accident could have been much worse if anyone had been under the influence of cannabis, but thankfully it's illegal so it wasn't a factor." Everything cuts in several directions.

We don't have to ban everything because we ban some things. I think having alcohol legal presents enough challenges to society as-is and I'd oppose any efforts to make anything else legal.
 
the war on drugs is one of the most self defeating and self destructive policies in history". The costs in human and financial terms are astronomical....

Personally, I'd rather not go back to the last century, when there were no consistent laws against drugs in the US, cocaine was put in sodas and cocaine addicts were lauded as intellectuals. Large chunks of the population were seriously addicted to some pretty nasty substances and I think we have found about the best possible accommodation these days, given the inherent tendency of many people to get addicted to something anyway.

Freud said that when you were potty trained strongly influenced your whole personality. Too early and you became hyper-organized (anal retentive), too late and you became disorganized and slothful (anal expulsive). If someone postulated such nonsense today they'd rightly be the butt of jokes and drummed out of their profession. You'd have to be higher than a kite to come up with such weirdness - such are the effects of injecting large amounts of cocaine I guess.
 
Personally, I'd rather not go back to the last century, when there were no consistent laws against drugs in the US, cocaine was put in sodas and cocaine addicts were lauded as intellectuals. Large chunks of the population were seriously addicted to some pretty nasty substances and I think we have found about the best possible accommodation these days, given the inherent tendency of many people to get addicted to something anyway.

That's why regulation is necessary. Instead they threw the baby out with the bathwater with prohibition and created a nice, fat black market for the Mr Bigs. Utterly self defeating knee-jerk response. As I said a "magic bullet solution".


Freud said that when you were potty trained strongly influenced your whole personality. Too early and you became hyper-organized (anal retentive), too late and you became disorganized and slothful (anal expulsive). If someone postulated such nonsense today they'd rightly be the butt of jokes and drummed out of their profession. You'd have to be higher than a kite to come up with such weirdness - such are the effects of injecting large amounts of cocaine I guess.

Freud and Jung created the psychodynamic school of psychology and it was a mighty achievement ... greater than any of us are likely to manage. By its very nature, scientific breakthroughs are not flawless - those who follow refine and improve the theories.

I think you overplay the cocaine connection, anyway. People can be flawed geniuses without drugs too.

Duncan, I'm sure you'd agree that if fisticuffs are required everyone is on the losing side (although some may not realise it).
 
It's no more hypocritical than simultaneously supporting legalizing all drugs but banning alcohol!

We don't necessarily know if anyone involved in any particular auto accident was under the influence of cannabis (or even alcohol), so I personally will wait, and you may wish to choose that option too. Would you be open to the possibility that, if no intoxicants were involved in a particular crash, then we should take that as a validation of anti-cannabis laws? "The accident could have been much worse if anyone had been under the influence of cannabis, but thankfully it's illegal so it wasn't a factor." Everything cuts in several directions.

We don't have to ban everything because we ban some things. I think having alcohol legal presents enough challenges to society as-is and I'd oppose any efforts to make anything else legal.

You might be confusing me with someone who wants to ban alcohol. I'm not. I'm trying to point out your glaring inconsistency in your opinion here. I'm in favor of almost no consensual crime or victim-less crime laws. I think some regulation is generally in order. In fact I advocate even stiffer penalties for intoxicated driving than currently exist.

I do not need the government to protect me from myself. It's not their job. They have a lot of more valid jobs that they are doing terrible at.
 
Back
Top