Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Topic: What prog music is best to do drugs to? Posted: June 27 2005 at 02:26 |
Even I can't untangle those messes!
I'm being completely agreed with on one hand, then told I couldn't be more wrong - with little or no actual or relative argument.
I think too many people are smoking the stuff and not owning up around here...
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: June 24 2005 at 17:10 |
Poxx wrote:
Tony R wrote:
Poxx wrote:
Error.
|
You greeting Japanese Forum members or something?
|
Yes, Takimakanukisura Hotinaromotoro is my dear friend, but I was also referring to the one word descripton of the origin of your existance.
|
Why thank you Poxx.......
But seeing as you come from the land of the great Peter Schmeichel,I shall forgive that sleight and your incorrect spelling of existence....
|
|
hdfisch
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 25 2004
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 513
|
Posted: June 24 2005 at 16:54 |
Oh the hell you guys are all medics here (I don't think, but you pretend to be!)
Poxx wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
I'm not arguing that at all - it's not true. Cannabis can be dangerous to some unfortunates who are negatively susceptible to its effects - like any drug. The same with fat - some people just balloon out and develop almost unmanageable obesity.
I'm just saying that all things are relative and different people react differently to different things.
There is nothing that we may consume that is bad in and of itself - it is our own personal reaction to it that could possibly be bad, so we need to know what it is we're consuming and monitor its effects. It doesn't take much - you don't have to follow a stringent diet or become a chemical analyst, but one should have a modicum of understanding.
Cannabis is not dangerous in relative terms. Unlike tobacco it doesn't directly harm your body and mind. Let's stay away from the abyss of infinite detail and the demon of my-friend's-grandcousin's-roomate's-daughter's-best- sex-partner-got-the-incontrollable-munchies-and-ate-a-rotten -banana-and-suffered-from-mild-diarrhea-as-a-result-of-smoki ng-a-blunt for now.
Depending on how you ingest the chemical, it will have different effects, of course (I think that's what you're saying here...)
I couldn't have been more clear.
No - you started off by assuming that I'd made a particular argument, and have come to this conclusion from that fallacious assumption.
Even heroin is not as damaging as one might think, given the broo-hah-hah surrounding it - aspirin is more lethal in lower doses. Heroin, however, is very physically addictive - it's worth knowing that, as a physical addiction can be a terrible thing, and creeps up on you without you knowing. Best avoided really.
I assumed that you were arguing about cannabis in particular, because as said, otherwise you would be wrong. I gave you the euphoria of benefit of doubt. My point is that if you were arguing in general terms you'd also be wrong. Wrong versus more wrong.
I didn't say that, although the implication is there, I suppose.
What I was getting at is that since these chemicals occur in us naturally, there is no point describing them as bad in and of themselves.
I am not evangelising their use though.
Nothing is bad on itself(given chemical located in vacuum), even the president pretends to know that. But they aren't "in themselves", they are in the body causing trouble. The body can control the chemicals it produces on its own, diseases excluded. But not nessecarily can it control that very same chemical when it is entering the body. It is up to the individual's, knowledge and self-consciousness whether he is able to safely consume a drug in the right amounts.
| |
|
|
hdfisch
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 25 2004
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 513
|
Posted: June 24 2005 at 16:46 |
Dear Certif1ed:
First it's not exactly cannabis what these scientists found in the brain, it's a similar compound. And it's as well stated: "This 2-AG cannabinoid doesn't have a receptor in the brain."
Secondly this kind of stuff is not really something new, it's well-known since a long time that the brain produces some compounds called opioids (means similar to opium) like beta-endorphin for example which exerts happiness in our brain.
Thirdly I think to use such scientific findings just naively without being a neuroscientist (I am not and I don't think you are) for justification of using drugs ( and I mean here really harmful ones, not only canna and such ones which might be necessary for treatment of diseases).
|
|
Poxx
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 03 2005
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 231
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 19:58 |
Tony R wrote:
Poxx wrote:
Error.
|
You greeting Japanese Forum members or something?
|
Yes, Takimakanukisura Hotinaromotoro is my dear friend, but I was also referring to the one word descripton of the origin of your existance.
Edited by Poxx
|
|
Poxx
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 03 2005
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 231
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 19:52 |
Certif1ed wrote:
I'm not arguing that at all - it's not true. Cannabis can be dangerous to some unfortunates who are negatively susceptible to its effects - like any drug. The same with fat - some people just balloon out and develop almost unmanageable obesity.
I'm just saying that all things are relative and different people react differently to different things.
There is nothing that we may consume that is bad in and of itself - it is our own personal reaction to it that could possibly be bad, so we need to know what it is we're consuming and monitor its effects. It doesn't take much - you don't have to follow a stringent diet or become a chemical analyst, but one should have a modicum of understanding.
Cannabis is not dangerous in relative terms. Unlike tobacco it doesn't directly harm your body and mind. Let's stay away from the abyss of infinite detail and the demon of my-friend's-grandcousin's-roomate's-daughter's-best- sex-partner-got-the-incontrollable-munchies-and-ate-a-rotten -banana-and-suffered-from-mild-diarrhea-as-a-result-of-smoki ng-a-blunt for now.
Depending on how you ingest the chemical, it will have different effects, of course (I think that's what you're saying here...)
I couldn't have been more clear.
No - you started off by assuming that I'd made a particular argument, and have come to this conclusion from that fallacious assumption.
Even heroin is not as damaging as one might think, given the broo-hah-hah surrounding it - aspirin is more lethal in lower doses. Heroin, however, is very physically addictive - it's worth knowing that, as a physical addiction can be a terrible thing, and creeps up on you without you knowing. Best avoided really.
I assumed that you were arguing about cannabis in particular, because as said, otherwise you would be wrong. I gave you the euphoria of benefit of doubt. My point is that if you were arguing in general terms you'd also be wrong. Wrong versus more wrong.
I didn't say that, although the implication is there, I suppose.
What I was getting at is that since these chemicals occur in us naturally, there is no point describing them as bad in and of themselves.
I am not evangelising their use though.
Nothing is bad on itself(given chemical located in vacuum), even the president pretends to know that. But they aren't "in themselves", they are in the body causing trouble. The body can control the chemicals it produces on its own, diseases excluded. But not nessecarily can it control that very same chemical when it is entering the body. It is up to the individual's, knowledge and self-consciousness whether he is able to safely consume a drug in the right amounts.
|
|
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 19:20 |
Gloryscene wrote:
omar progriguez wrote:
I reckon it has to be van der graaf generator.
what prog do you do drugs to?
|
I love to sniff loads of different weird stuff to the track "I Can't Dance" by GENESIS
|
That album almost made start doing drugs.
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 19:03 |
Poxx wrote:
Error.
|
You greeting Japanese Forum members or something?
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 18:50 |
Poxx wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Yes it can be considered a valid argument.
We produce fat in our bodies, but it doesn't stop us consuming it - despite the publicity about how bad it is for us.
We also produce sugar - which is one of the nastiest refined substances under the sun.
Salt too can kill us in large amounts, but in small amounts we love it - and in slightly more than moderate amounts, it too can be dangerous.
I would add the olives of comparison to your pizza - but maybe leave off the mushrooms (fed bull**** and kept in the dark)
(I used that last analogy because I thought it was amusing, not as a dig at your comments... in case it wan't clear )
|
If you're arguing that cannabis is not dangerous, which is true, your argument is not valid. The only thing that is relevant when arguing for that thesis, is the actual effects of cannabis consumption.
I'm not arguing that at all - it's not true. Cannabis can be dangerous to some unfortunates who are negatively susceptible to its effects - like any drug. The same with fat - some people just balloon out and develop almost unmanageable obesity.
I'm just saying that all things are relative and different people react differently to different things.
There is nothing that we may consume that is bad in and of itself - it is our own personal reaction to it that could possibly be bad, so we need to know what it is we're consuming and monitor its effects. It doesn't take much - you don't have to follow a stringent diet or become a chemical analyst, but one should have a modicum of understanding.
The mind and body has it's own way of controlling it's biochemistry, but it can not account for chemicals consumed as a result of a conscious decision to consume the drug. There are a wealth of natural chemicals located in the human body and mind, that can be lethal if consumed. And if you think that because the amount of a given chemical located in the body is usually smaller than the amount commonly consumed, and that the amount is the only factor in how the body will react to the chemical, you are wrong. For example, infinitely small amounts of tar(not only tar can cause this) can cause immediate death if applied unto certain spots in the brain. This won't happen by consuming cannabis, but the principle is the same.
Depending on how you ingest the chemical, it will have different effects, of course (I think that's what you're saying here...)
You have to approach it in terms of principles, because it is irrelevant that cannabis works in other ways than, say, heroin, you would be subjectively favouritising cannabis and its affects, by not stating the exact same for heroin. Your invalid argument would apply to heroin as well.
No - you started off by assuming that I'd made a particular argument, and have come to this conclusion from that fallacious assumption.
Even heroin is not as damaging as one might think, given the broo-hah-hah surrounding it - aspirin is more lethal in lower doses. Heroin, however, is very physically addictive - it's worth knowing that, as a physical addiction can be a terrible thing, and creeps up on you without you knowing. Best avoided really.
The body is not nessecarily able to handle an external chemical entering the body/brain, even if it produces it on its own.
I didn't say that, although the implication is there, I suppose.
What I was getting at is that since these chemicals occur in us naturally, there is no point describing them as bad in and of themselves.
I am not evangelising their use though. |
|
|
Poxx
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 03 2005
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 231
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 17:58 |
|
|
Poxx
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 03 2005
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 231
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 17:56 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Yes it can be considered a valid argument.
We produce fat in our bodies, but it doesn't stop us consuming it - despite the publicity about how bad it is for us.
We also produce sugar - which is one of the nastiest refined substances under the sun.
Salt too can kill us in large amounts, but in small amounts we love it - and in slightly more than moderate amounts, it too can be dangerous.
I would add the olives of comparison to your pizza - but maybe leave off the mushrooms (fed bull**** and kept in the dark)
(I used that last analogy because I thought it was amusing, not as a dig at your comments... in case it wan't clear )
|
If you're arguing that cannabis is not dangerous, which is true, your argument is not valid. The only thing that is relevant when arguing for that thesis, is the actual effects of cannabis consumption.
The mind and body has it's own way of controlling it's biochemistry, but it can not account for chemicals consumed as a result of a conscious decision to consume the drug. There are a wealth of natural chemicals located in the human body and mind, that can be lethal if consumed. And if you think that because the amount of a given chemical located in the body is usually smaller than the amount commonly consumed, and that the amount is the only factor in how the body will react to the chemical, you are wrong. For example, infinitely small amounts of tar(not only tar can cause this) can cause immediate death if applied unto certain spots in the brain. This won't happen by consuming cannabis, but the principle is the same.
You have to approach it in terms of principles, because it is irrelevant that cannabis works in other ways than, say, heroin, you would be subjectively favouritising cannabis and its affects, by not stating the exact same for heroin. Your invalid argument would apply to heroin as well.
The body is not nessecarily able to handle an external chemical entering the body/brain, even if it produces it on its own.
Edited by Poxx
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 15:40 |
Poxx wrote:
That can't really be considered a valid argument pro cannabis. We also produce morphine-like chemicals in the brain, it doesn't mean that we should all chew on a chunk of opium every odd 15 minutes.
We also produce fat - don't drink a grease tank.
Of course cannabis should be legal, it doesn't take half a pizza for a brain to figure that out. But it does take two large with extra cheese of ignorance to deny it's harmlessness.
|
Yes it can be considered a valid argument.
We produce fat in our bodies, but it doesn't stop us consuming it - despite the publicity about how bad it is for us.
We also produce sugar - which is one of the nastiest refined substances under the sun.
Salt too can kill us in large amounts, but in small amounts we love it - and in slightly more than moderate amounts, it too can be dangerous.
I would add the olives of comparison to your pizza - but maybe leave off the mushrooms (fed bull**** and kept in the dark)
(I used that last analogy because I thought it was amusing, not as a dig at your comments... in case it wan't clear )
Edited by Certif1ed
|
|
abyssyinfinity
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 13 2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 443
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 13:56 |
... go to my poll & vote...
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 13:02 |
Yes, but very few
|
|
hdfisch
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 25 2004
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 513
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 11:33 |
I'd like to dare to doubt this, maybe some but ALL GOOD PROG??????
Well it's ONE opinion, certainly it depends what you consider as GOOD. If for you only WEIRD = GOOD it might be correct. But I'm pretty sure that there is quite a few even weird stuff in Prog which had been done without using drugs!
oliverstoned wrote:
But all good prog was made under drugs! this is druggy music (mainly MJ, mush and acid) |
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 11:24 |
Thats what they all say. Give it a few months, you'd sell your own granny for a Bourbon.
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
sigod
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 17 2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 11:19 |
Listen I can control it, honest I can!
|
I must remind the right honourable gentleman that a monologue is not a decision.
- Clement Atlee, on Winston Churchill
|
|
Manunkind
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 2373
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 09:23 |
JesusBetancourt wrote:
oliverstoned wrote:
JesusBetancourt wrote:
oliverstoned wrote:
JesusBetancourt wrote:
The words loser and winners are used by contemporary society to judge men by there accomplishments(status , money , etc), they do not determine a persons true worth. We are all created equal... | You don't need to believe in these notions... Good and bad, false and truth are only humans interpretations, mental creations |
a persons interpitation of what is good and bad /false and true is an abstraction of the mind however there is a truth and a good and evil(bad) that is above the humane mind.
|
Evil and truth ARE human notions! |
Man is naturally evil....and there is an objective truth
|
Just to pur some oil into the fire - the Dalai Lama says man is naturally good and there is an objective truth.
And I don't do drugs.
|
"In war there is no time to teach or learn Zen. Carry a strong stick. Bash your attackers." - Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 09:17 |
sigod wrote:
I do enjoy listening to 'The Lamb...' with a cup of tea and some chocolate hob-nobs.
Hmmm, I do believe I have hit middle age.
|
You wanna watch that habit of yours sigod. I had a friend who done tea and Hob Nobs. A year later he was spreading Nutella on Ginger Snaps, total nutter.
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: June 23 2005 at 08:37 |
btw, the record cover which is my avatar, "Delired cameleon family" is a 3 days jam session released in Mars 75, includind Clearlight members+Tim blake, was made under acid and H! the sound enginners had never seen so much smoke and dope in their studio!
You can see the kind leaf at the right bottom of the cover
|
|