Do culturally ubiquitous drugs like caffeine, tobacco or alcohol have a net negative or positive effect on a society? How have the introductions of these drugs changed society for the worse or better?
Are there any drugs our society should adopt for general use? I don't just mean marijuana. I'm speaking more of hallucinogens used in a shamanistic sense. Do you think our society could benefit from our intellectuals using these substances, in the same way med students pop adderall like candy and cocaine helped drive the 80's stock boom?
I'd say tobacco and caffeine are a net good on the count that they have more or less no downsides, stimulate the economy by the demand for them, and generally just help people get through the day.
Alcohol on the other hand is clearly bad. Even if just for the more philosophical reasons suggested by Nietzsche.
its a categorical assumption that our society needs to turn away from drug use, wholesale. The entire culture of "drugs enhance _______" is complete and utter stupidity that falls squarely in the realm of millennial interests.
There is virtually nothing in this world I could care less about having intellectuals waste their money and time on than psychadelic drugs or d rug use in general.
>pic related HURP A DERP
into the fucking trash. If i had it my way, into the fucking OVEN
Alcohol is one of the hardest drugs available, far worse than any of the the other recreational drugs mentioned in OP.
It's just that a society run as a police state is worse than a society that allows the use of recreational drugs.
Pro-prohibition-fags: how do you prove in a court of law that drugs were found in the possession of the suspect? The testimony of the police officer who found them on the suspect is equal to the suspects testimony that they didn't find them on their person, so it's a wash. How do they then prove drugs were found, without the judge or jury elevating the word of one witness above the other?
>In whose interest does our society function?
The question is, do you want to be locked up for possessing recreational drugs, and do you think your life would be improved if you were?
I've got to side with Aldous Huxley on this one, actually.
Psychedelics are immensely wonderful in the hands of the right people. The right people are an incredibly small segment of society and unfortunately the rest of the population simply isn't equipped to handle or appreciate the insights and revelations potentially brought about by responsible psychedelic use.
Naysayers are simply in the low IQ range that shouldn't have access.
Tradition, because it used to be safer to drink than water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YxauHnpyg
Literally predates the United States and was a staple cash crop when the United States was founded. Even so, it's becoming increasingly discouraged.
It's a stimulant with practical use, and significantly less risk with harder stimulants like meth and coke. Also, tea predates the United States as well.
what kind of high ass idiot are you.
The social contract of any functioning western society, clearly establishes the Police and their professions duties as implicitly justified.
is this what you millennials think? That, your word and the polices word are equal? and that every last infraction and misdemeanor should be dileberated by a jury?
>How do they then prove drugs were found
fingerprints you dipshit moron. 99% of drugs, and paraphanalia will have some kind of print or biological indicator of posession. Further, when the police locate drugs on your person, or in your vehicle, possession is implied. How did you not understand this? how old are you? Do you not understand that "possession is 9/10th of the law? and that posession is determined both implicitly and through evidence gathering means?
"its your word against mine officer"
They increase net GDP, so they're good. Any other metric used to justify them being negative just amounts to hurt feelings or a belief that even though they can act rationally no one else can.
I don't even use any of those substances.
caffeine can actually calm down a lot of people who otherwise have a lot of energy (ie have ADHD) allowing them to focus and be more productive, thus allowing them to make a greater contribution to society. i would say this is a net positive considering the only real downfalls are when people develop a tolerance to it and need to drink more and more
>ie have ADHD
Ja, that's me exactly.
>the only real downfalls are when people develop a tolerance to it and need to drink more and more
This is me already, I'm finding I'm drinking more and more and more. I wake up and I can smell coffee beans :-(
I was visiting a family member in the hospital, and the guy in the room next to her was dying of lung cancer. Oh my god, it looks like one of the most painful ways to go. He was hacking up blood and phlegm that smelled like smoke. It was one of the most disgusting smells I've ever smelt. I'd say a tobacco death, is a fucked up, horrible way to go.
Yes, apart from the health problems it causes (as your two examples also do), it causes heavy impairment and allows for a palpable escape from facing reality.
It's one of the reasons injustice prevails.
Coffee, black is a metaphor for his capacity for evil and masculinity.
The "pie" is Audrey's cunt.
Why do you think he gets trapped in the redroom to the Black Lodge instead of the White Lodge?
the answer is yes
it really depends on where you approach the subject from. example: Culturally alcohol is significant to many european countries: from england, to italy, to Russia. the Czech republic is known for its beer locally known as Pils, we would call it pilsner. the Czechs, much like the Germans, are good at making 2 things independent of other countries: culture and beer. what makes this different from the Germans per say is that these two niche markets are their only real big important asset not owned/dominated by another country. the republic is also responsible for a fair percentage of cars, its biggest export, that said almost all of their auto companies' parent syndicates are German. beer was also a constant in their culture when they were bent down and fucked by the nazis/soviets/others. so you could say beer is beneficial to them
on a medical level it is, like most countries and their drugs, not at all beneficial.
the closest you come with a particular poison being good for a country in almost all ways is eastern countries and many types of tea as well as a few select others.
this said, prohibition and popularization of drugs is a fairly debatable outcome. generally speaking though since we dont know what would have happened did a certain event not happen i would say most drugs have an overall negative effect on majority of societies. not saying all drugs are bad, more saying most drugs taken either recreationally or not to treat something have both highs and lows.
would endorsing drugs help the nation/area/world profit? yes and no. it depends on the drug and what its being used for, in what dosages, and by what organization and restriction. rudimentary anti inflammatory drugs and pain relievers people use quite frequently in the civilized countries when we don't actually need them.
The vast majority of people can't handle em for a reason anon. Society pressing ridiculous ammount of stress on every citizen and then repressing the means to escape this because the role model is of the stronk worker that does his labour without complaining, ultimately leads to these "unofficial drugs" abuse. Smoking, sucking, having something in your mouth, for example, is directly linked to primal suck-and-fuck well being. Most smokers are fucking dry on the inside and compensate with what they have. This aspect of society could be fixed to have more joyfull citizen that wouldn't need to abuse the bottle or cigarette but then it wouldn't sell and make money.
I see where you're going anon. But then the problem does not comes from who is the most truth-worthy, but from the justification of having said drugs illegal.
Having drugs illegal has proven to be a failure and to be destructive for both sides of the balance. So at this point the very question of having your words against the ones of an officer in this subject becomes ridiculous.
Also being a cop doesn't imply that you're the good guy you know.
You do realize that cops are on the reg liars and douchebags, right? People trust them implicitly and that gives them free reign to abuse the law and dodge punishment. Look at any news broadcast in this day and age and you'll see instances of cops killing clearly unarmed people and getting off scot free, or using clearly unjustified force and getting no reprimand unless there's video evidence that clearly shows that the police officer did it without a shadow of a doubt.
A cop doesn't have your best interest in mind most of the time, kid, and planting evidence on people is a common way to remove undesirables.