Mary writes in...PLEASE don't go and overdose on any vitamins. Just because you can buy them over the counter doesn't mean they don't have toxicities. Vitamin C in excess of 2 grams can cause cramping and diarhea in some people. If you already have a tolerance you can take more without ill effects.
Carp contributes the following...C6H8O6. Ascorbic acid _is_ vitamin C. It was first isolated from chile peppers. Chile peppers have 3 times as much of the stuff as do oranges. This is in addition to the capsaician content of chiles which also has a strong simulated physical effect (sensation of burning) that causes the body to pump out massive amounts of endorphins--the body's natural pain-killers which closely resemble opiates; they give you a buzz. Eat a habenero, see in 15 minutes if you don't feel like you just toked up a bowl of opium. After practice, you can use hot peppers as a sleeping aid.
But are chiles a "durg?" Or do they cause the body to _manufacture_ a durg? So what category will you put them in? I call them a food group.
I would wonder if it was the ascorbic acid [that caused the problem] --it's also commonly used as a food preservative--or if it was the powder itself (some kind of bonding agent). I used to eat mega-doses of vitamin C; like 30 or 40 times the recommended daily need. It didn't do anything to me. But those were pills. I'd guess you had The Common Shits. They're going around.
A durg is _any_ substance that kills or inactivates various body tissues, or affects any body organ or function. Vitamin C is a necessary component and nutritional need of a living animal organism. I'm not sure I would call something that is a necessity a durg any more than I would call something nutritional a durg.
There are basically these two categories of "durgs." This breakdown is better illustrated and defined by using the term "psycho-active" in place of "durg" for those agents that act on both the physiological and psychological systems. This is essentially the accepted classification system: "Physio-active," and "psycho-active."
Coffee and Coca-Cola contain "psycho-active" substances or "durgs." Yes, this is common knowledge. The Church of the Latter Day Saints (Moroni) have recognized this from almost their beginning and have forbidden caffiene to their members as being ill for the soul.
Acording to _your_ working definition sugar can be a durg. I don't know of any study that shows a universal psycho response. The physio response is there as sugar is a food. It could meet your definition of a durg, and the earliest definition I used. But so can practically anything.
Cocoa, on the other hand, _is_ a pysycho-active. It has long been recognized as such. The Incas used to use it as a reward. The psycho-active elements of cocoa can easily be observed; just feed a Hershey bar to an angry person. That chocolate melting in their mouth will still the angry beast within moments. Does sugar possess this capability? I have never heard it claimed so. It mainly has a physical response, which would put it in the food category.
I'm fairly sure refined sugar is not good for you. You call it a poison and I won't argue with that in large doses; but in smaller doses it acts as a "food," not to mention there are like, umpteen different kinds of sugar. A lot of them refined. But there is a difference between a "poison" and a "durg" and a "food" and a psycho-active." All can be the former, but the former is not necessessarily all of the latter.
"Durg free" is one of those myths that officer DARE came up with. As you have noted it is all definitional. If you go with the more accepted notions of "psycho-actives" instead of including a definition so broad it includes most foods, you are still not durg-free, but it becomes somewhat possible.
As always, I seem to be at a loss as to the purpose of the entire self-debate.. If you want to go sx, go sx. Get a book from your friendly pharmacy that defines "durgs" _and_ "psycho-active durgs" and try from there. Personally though, I got to tell you that Henry Rollins just pisses me off.
There has never been a society anywhere on the face of the earth that has had access to psycho-actives that was able to eliminate their use by the people. Back to the moroni (Mormons); they threaten people with the vindictivness of The Great Jehova himself if members use psycho-actives. this ain't no ordinary jail-term they're speaking of; it's Hell.
Yet many Mormons daily use caffiene nicotine, and chocolate-- even under threat of damnation.
The moral to the story?
Damned if I know.
Richard shares his thoughts...Had to respond to this, it's so on-target. Pardon me if I'm stating the obvious in some respects, but my view has always been:
There are all kinds of drugs that we deal with. All have some effect, or they wouldn't be drugs, they'd be placebos. There's a spectrum ranging from substances that are beneficial and only slightly harmful or dangerous for most people (aspirin, for example) on one end, to extremely dangerous and harmful substances on the other end (heroin or crack cocaine would be examples).
The fact is that some drugs are perfectly legal, some are completely illegal, and some are legal under certain circumstances (only for adults, or only with a prescription etc.). The debate, and the question before the house, is really: where do we draw the line?
Extremism is obviously wrong in this context. Making all drugs (including heroin, crack, cat and all the rest) legal, or making all drugs (including aspirin, caffeine, vitamin C or whatever) totally illegal, are both unrealistic and wrong answers. I think that's common ground among all of us. If not, speak up!
To which Dawn responds...
sorry, i'm not on that ground with you. i think legalization of 'em all is a good idea.
i don't think doing drugs is a good idea, but i think police officers, prosecutors, and prison guards make shitty substance abuse counselors.
and before you go bringing up what horrible things people do when they're on drugs, those are exactly the type of things which are and should be illegal--like assault, battery, robbery etc. if i get my ass kicked by somebody who robs me, i don't give a shit whether they were high or not --i say lock the bastard up. likewise, if somebody sitting in their living room watching tv, why should care what chemicals they're into? why should you?
Rachel agrees...
I also agree that ALL drugs should be legal. I don't have a problem with it.
Also, anything can be a drug...even if you consider it nutritional. Food *does* affect you and lots of different food can give you highs, like turkey for example...it makes some people fall asleep and it makes some people high (kind of like pot).
People can become addicted to certain foods or certain things in foods...nutritionists know that fat is addictive...that's why you can't have just one chip...or if you have fast food one day you want it again the next...
But as Bart said before, addiction is not necessarily the qualifier of whether or not something is a drug...sex is addictive, shopping is addictive, etc. I know that some substances make certain physiological changes to your body and your brain...but so do certain behaviors...and that's why I say that drugs aren't necessarily the culprit...it's easy for a lot of people to target it as the source,but I think that certain patterns of thought and certain personalitites are more to blame.
If you take away all the drugs people will find other ways to be self-destructive.
And so does Eric...
I agree with Rachel and Dawn that all drugs should be legal. It just seems wrong to punish somebody for posessing or ingesting a substance. Plus, it's not fair of me to only want _my_ favorite drugs legalized & all the "bad" drugs that other people use kept illegal. As far as the harm they do, well, it has to be regulated just like any other ingestibles. I mean, if something is harmful, I can understand making it illegal to sell, at least without a big warning label, but not to posess. So, if people want to make cat & take it & die, well, it's fucked up, but I don't want to put them in jail.
But Richard goes on...
It's necessary to look at each substance individually, and make an informed judgement about how harmful or helpful it is. A financial analyst might speak of a "cost-benefit analysis."
Once that's been done, a decision must be made on whether a given substance should be controlled, or not, and if so to what extent and in what ways. THIS decision -- unlike the "cost-benefit analysis" business -- must be made in a relative contest. How dangerous is this drug compared to others?
The classic example of problems with this process is America's "Noble Experiment" of Prohibition. There is no doubt that alcohol can be a very harmful drug indeed; this again is generally agreed among everyone. And I think everybody agrees that some controls are proper on the availability of alcohol. A lot of people felt, and still feel, that alcohol is so harmful that it ought to be banned entirely.
We actually tried it. It did not work. In practical terms, banning alcohol caused many problems, and it was perceived that the attempt caused more problems than it solved. In practical terms, total prohibition of alcohol proved impossible in our society -- except voluntarily. This is an empirical argument, not theoretical.
If one honestly and fairly applies these methods to marijuana, the injustice of the present social situation becomes clear. Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol; it's less dangerous than nicotine. There has been quite a lot of research on all three substances over the past few decades. I can't quote chapter-and-verse, but every time someone finds scientific evidence of harmfulness in marijuana, there are plenty of people who put their shoulders to the wheel to give it wide publicity. If any evidence has been developed that shows marijuana is as bad as alcohol, or worse, I haven't seen it.
That's NOT to say that marijuana is harmless. Only that it is LESS harmless than other drugs which are much less controlled. There are many millions of Americans who believe this to be true, and the only thing that will change their minds is real hard evidence, which does not seem to be forthcoming.
The obvious inconsistent standards here are what are so blatantly unfair. "Alcohol kills tens of thousands each year in America alone, but it's widely available. Nicotine kills many tens of thousands, but it's widely available. Marijuana kills very few people (if any) by comparison, but it's saddled with horrible legal penalties." That's the gist of the argument. The penalty for using marijuana is enormously greater than it should be.
This widely-perceived unfairness is terribly harmful to the good, legitimate efforts that are made to control the drugs that really hurt. Someone who smokes pot will be suspicious and mistrustful of policemen. They may well fear and hate heroin, crack, and "cat," but will they call the cops to help suppress those, when they themselves risk prison by doing so?
Dawn again:
what in the hell is cat?
i used to think there wasn't a drug i haven't tried, now i find out there's one i haven't even heard of? i'm so embarrassed
Carp replies...
Don't be. Methacata-something-or-other is a bathtub manufactured version of speed. It's trash and made from things like Drano and acetone. It's so trashy you don't need to wirry about the carcinogens killing you. Cat itself will take you out long before the cancer sets in.
Allegedly peole make it at home for big profits, but I can't figure out who they are selling it to. No self-respecting junkie or crack-head will touch it.
Terry chimes in...
i tried cat a couple of times a friend brought it over who was trying to turn me on to it junkie/pusher style i said suurrreee why not it was made right here in b-ton in some slumlords hell this friend was trying to stir up a market for his friend working together like a community should he kept saying he didn't want any money for it just if i could get him high sometime in return that was an easy promise to make i had a mirror and he had a razor blade again a perfect example of the community at work since my friend had watched it being made i thought well it can't be too godawful it was nothing like the botched batch of crank my buddy rik and i made and shot up years ago it was speed that's about all you can say for it not as wiring as coke but i definately felt the lift it certainly wouldn't be worth the designer drug prices he came back over a couple more times trying to hook me but being the scavenger i am i just did his drugs and sent him on his way the last time was the most amusing his friend was holding out on the freebie doses because of his failed attempts at generating a clientele but he had a coffee filter that was used in the process and had residue all over it so he soaked it in water squeezed it out in a glass dish and we cooked up enough for a good hit and a half a piece it was the mildest buzz of all the attempts only seen my friend a couple times since then he's dropped out of school and is unemployed at the time he's actually quite an intellectual frustrated with the school system that has turned the prof/student relationship into politics and education into a breeding ground for debt and disgruntled labor force i'm sure i'll see him again he's been in and out of his junkie phase for a few years now last time he disappeared he ended up in nyc riding a white horse lucky cuss i've wanted to be that fortunate for years guess i'll just have to wait for the pure range of amsterdam
Joe contributes this tidbit: ...did you hear about when much of the Pointe (the condo development on Lake Monroe) went up in flames a coupl'a years ago? Apparently a coupl'a guys were in the process of cookin' up some cat, and it got a bit outta hand.
Carp replies...
All things have a Carp Connection. The guy who got toasted to death has a 11-year old boy who lives a row back of us in the mobile home court, ("trailer court" to you uncouth) named Cody. Cody has always had some major, um, attention porblems; he is most defintiely a compulsive shopper. The Code-Man was barred from our yard due to his sudden and uncotrollable urge to do things like hurl 10" shards of broken glass at Levi and Erin for entertainment.
Now his source of joy is whipping this other 10-year old named Jesse at the school bus-stop. Jesse, no lie, also is a compulsive shopper and has had his won *psychaitrist* since he was 7.
But back to Cody's old man. He didn't have much to do with Cody but when he checked out Cody was like, 9. Cody inherited 2 Harley's, 30 guns including a sweet Mini-14 Ruger and an AK47, and other macho sundries which, luckily, were stored at Cody's grandpa's to kepp them out of Cody's impulsive reach. Cody didn't grieve so much as celebrate. I mean thekid came into some loot.
Then a week later Cody's grandpa was popped as part of the methacat manufacturing conspiracy that caused the fire that burned the 18 condos at the Pointe that killed Cody's pa. When Cody's grandpa got tagged, the coppers confiscated the two Harleys, the 30 weapons, and the other assorted sundry items.
Since that time Cody still hasn't grieved much and I feed him hot peppers for entertainment.
The f*cker hit Levi in the bill of his cap with a shard of glass one day that cut _through_ the bill and stuck above the eye so I don't feel bad aout the hot peppers. He is moving in a month and Jesse, the 10-year old with his own shrink is moving at the end of skool.
What does this have to do with cat? Nothing, except that I think dawn identified the likely consumers, and they live withing a few homes of me.
I am, if anything, white trash kind of people.
JB writes in...
Regarding this whole "cat" sub-issue... I recall an article in SPIN around a year ago in which they examined the phenomena in chilling detail. Many stories of 15-24 hour highs only to be followed up by equally lengthy and intolerable lows thereafter, replete with tales of overnight abject poverty and demoralization.
One particularly gruesome story involved a young agrarian miscreant who, on a mega cat bender, masturbated at great, um, length. Delighted with his drug-induced staying power, he stroked away for what seemed like hours on end only to look down and discover to his horror that the lubrication in his lap was a substantial amount of blood from where he'd rubbed ALL THE SKIN OFF HIS PENIS. Yeowwww!
(Um, Mom... I need to go to the doctor.... What kind of insurance do we have?)
I seem to recall that they fixed him up with skin grafts from his thigh. Thought you'd want to know.
See, you're really not missing anything, Dawn.
Dawn:
so, people are mixin' nailpolish remover and drain uncloogger and what evr else sounds highly poisonous and deadly to cosume, and sellin' it for speed, huh? and you can't figure out who their selling it to?
uh, i'd have to guess their sellin' it to kids. young people with even less self respect than junkies and crack heads and generally kinda stupid on top of that.
since i just said a post ago that i think all drugs should be legal, i wasn't including this crap. i don't think this is a drug issue , this is more like reckless endangerment, which is another one of those things i think should remain illegal.
my over all point being that we'd be better able to deal with "bad people" who do fucked up things if we weren't trying to make our criminal justice system handle "stupid people" who's problems (drug abuse or whatever) should be addressed by OTHER social services.
when i said: "stupid people" i didn't mean to imply people for whom drug abuse becomes a problem are necessarily stupid. i don't believe that.
i think there is a set of people whose stupidity manifests itself in drug related activity and they are ruining the drug culture for everyone else.
or something like that. i'm typing much more than i'm thinking actually.
Richard sums up...My perception is that, by far, most of the people who are at risk for the legal penalties of marijuana use are average, ordinary, decent, generally law-abiding folks. The number is probably higher than anyone has ever been able to discover by surveys, since a great many pot smokers will not take any risk at all of legal repercussions by reporting truthfully on the subject.
JB ("Supro") posted a reply on this subject that was a little unclear. I *think* he said that he can and does use caffeine, but sees no reason why that should justify the use of other drugs which are more harmful. If so, I agree. Adults can, do, and should be able to decide for themselves what risks they will take -- within necessary limits.
OK, this has gone on too long. There are other topics that spin off from this basis - the "gateway drug" argument, the history of Harry Ainslinger and his "Reefer Madness" hysteria, the drive-it-underground-into-the-arms-of-organized-crime scenario, "is it right to legislate morality?" and so forth.
I guess the bottom line here is perspective. Get the facts on the actual properties of any and all drugs, and let's have a law which is at least fair and consistent. Anyone who supports the marijuana laws as they now stand ought to belive in penalties at least as harsh for the posession and use of substances which are even more harmful.
But base your decisions on the FACTS!
Enough already. Too much, probably.