-10

Someone who has never used drugs (or associated with people who do) has no right to lecture high school students about drugs and their effects, amirite?

35%Yeah You Are65%No Way
AtheisticMystics avatar Health, Beauty & Fitness
Share
0 21
The voters have decided that AtheisticMystic is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Context:
Some speaker visited my high school today. He has never done drugs and has made a point to never be around people that do use drugs. And his career is to go around the world talking to high school students about drugs, relaying incorrect information. I stayed behind after his lecture and had a one on one debate with him, and he was flat out wrong about everything. When I irrefutably proved that he was wrong, his response was to say that my sources were just making up their information (precisely what he was doing). I showed him an article from BusinessInsider and he said that they were lying because their agenda is legalization. He also said that during alcohol prohibition, usage rates went down. The opposite is true. Rant completed.

@AtheisticMystic Context: Some speaker visited my high school today. He has never done drugs and has made a point to never be around...

In your specific instance, I would have to agree. But if someone were educated on drugs and their effects and had never done them or been around people on them, I think they should still be able to lecture on them.

@AtheisticMystic Context: Some speaker visited my high school today. He has never done drugs and has made a point to never be around...

I'm gonna have to agree with Colebowl. The sole thing drug use allows you to do is teach people your own subjective experience with a drug.

@Mike_Hawk I'm gonna have to agree with Colebowl. The sole thing drug use allows you to do is teach people your own subjective...

No way! Would you study something and then not try it. I am an expert in math but never added numbers. I studied brain surgery but never held a scalpel.

I studied drugs but, not only did I not try them, I avoid people who do? WTF

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc No way! Would you study something and then not try it. I am an expert in math but never added numbers. I studied...

Because knowing your enemy is still a great advantage. If you want to eradicate something, knowing everything you can about it would be a wonderful tool.

Also, there's the fact that people have often already done the research. I haven't tried LSD (yet), but I can tell you that it gets its effects primarily by binding the the 5-HT2A receptor in the brain, and taking it will result in psychedelic visions. Colors will appear to be much brighter, surfaces will look distorted, fractals will appear in the visual field, and thoughts will be sporadic and make little logical sense. It is extremely potent, with and active dose of roughly 20 millionths of a gram. Average doses are between 150 micrograms and 250 micrograms. LSD is most often taken when put in a solution and dripped onto little tabs of paper called "blotters". They are ingested, and the drug will take effect in 30 minutes to an hour; it will then peak after three or four hours, and the user will gradually return to baseline after eight to 10 hours. LSD has a biological half-life of between three and five hours, and the entire dose will have been excreted through the urine with two days of ingestion.

@VicZinc No way! Would you study something and then not try it. I am an expert in math but never added numbers. I studied...

It doesn't matter if you're able to tell students or whoever you're lecturing your subjective view point. "Being stoned is kind of like being sleepy, but also being giggly and amused, and just kind of out of it." "Being on acid makes time feel like it's going faster and slower at the same time and everything is funny you're happy and relaxed but kind of confused and you see things look all geometric and colorful and shyt" The student doesn't really know that, it kind of makes it sound appealing. As long as you're able to provide accurate information, that like encyclopedia Mike posted, statistics, long terms and short term effects, there's no need to do drugs to have the right to lecture about them.

@Frank_n_Furter It doesn't matter if you're able to tell students or whoever you're lecturing your subjective view point. "Being...

OK, I give in. They have the "right" to lecture. But I would not take them seriously. Mike's info required someone to take the drug so it could be studied. I never trust anyone who get's all their information second hand and claims it is infallible. I never trust anyone willing to subject others to "tests" they themselves would not take.

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc OK, I give in. They have the "right" to lecture. But I would not take them seriously. Mike's info required...

I learn about religion from people who aren't God, I learn about history from people who weren't there, scientists have to stand on the shoulders of giants (someone had to have done the basics first, if it wasn't for Newton inventing calculus, they wouldn't be able to figure x out), observe sleep studies, medical experiments, etc. I would actually trust the opinion of someone whose opinion was a 3rd party objective viewpoint more than someone involved in the situation. Think about the interviews of the Westboro Baptist Church- who do you think has more understanding of their cult, them, who think it's all in the name of God, or people who can actually stand back and see the brainwashing? Drugs can change your view point. Doing them or not doing them doesn't mean what you know about them is any more true. I know a lot of pot heads who think weed kills cancer and that marijuana isn't a drug, and I know a lot of people who don't smoke weed and aren't friends with stoners who are for the legalization of marijuana because they are well educated on it. Does someone who smokes have a more valid opinion on the legalization of marijuana than someone who doesn't, or does the bias only stand

@VicZinc OK, I give in. They have the "right" to lecture. But I would not take them seriously. Mike's info required...

I learn about religion from people who aren't God, I learn about history from people who weren't there, scientists have to stand on the shoulders of giants (someone had to have done the basics first, if it wasn't for Newton inventing calculus, they wouldn't be able to figure x out), observe sleep studies, medical experiments, etc. I would actually trust the opinion of someone whose opinion was a 3rd party objective viewpoint more than someone involved in the situation. Think about the interviews of the Westboro Baptist Church- who do you think has more understanding of their cult, them, who think it's all in the name of God, or people who can actually stand back and see the brainwashing? Drugs can change your view point. Doing them or not doing them doesn't mean what you know about them is any more true. I know a lot of pot heads who think weed kills cancer and that marijuana isn't a drug, and I know a lot of people who don't smoke weed and aren't friends with stoners who are for the legalization of marijuana because they are well educated on it. Does someone who smokes have a more valid opinion on the legalization of marijuana than someone who doesn't, or is there a bias only t...

@Frank_n_Furter toward those who are against them?

Fair questions. I don't trust religious leaders who don't pray. I don't trust scientist who don't verify with experimentation. I don't trust Historians who think they actually know what happened. And I don't trust drug counselors who are afraid to try it.

That does not mean that every pothead is an expert. It just means that a hold dubious the expertise of a person who does not verify their beliefs with experimentation.

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc Fair questions. I don't trust religious leaders who don't pray. I don't trust scientist who don't verify with...

"I don't trust scientist who don't verify with experimentation" Do these experiments have to be on them self?

@Frank_n_Furter "I don't trust scientist who don't verify with experimentation" Do these experiments have to be on them self?

While you are going to corner me here if I am not careful :).

OP's comment included: "He has never done drugs and has made a point to never be around people that do use drugs."

So how do you do an experiment if you make it a point not to be around your subjects?

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc While you are going to corner me here if I am not careful :). OP's comment included: "He has never done drugs and...

You can look at other people's experiments, like a psychologist who does cross studies on studies other psychologists have done, which is done especially a lot when studying things between different cultures. You don't need to physically be with your subject to study a subject. You can watch videos, you can read other people's studies, sometimes a study would even requires you to not be around the subject.

@Frank_n_Furter You can look at other people's experiments, like a psychologist who does cross studies on studies other...

What do you want me to say? I do not trust information from people who 1) do not have first hand knowledge and 2) claim that their information is, none-the-less, sacrosanct.

Yes, there are lots of ways to learn information.
Yes, it is possible to have more information on a subject than the average person even if you yourself are not doing the clinical research.

No, I do not believe someone if they claim "I know this for a fact" if they themselves have no first hand experience in and they are relying on information gathered from outside sources. I just don't.

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Frank_n_Furter It doesn't matter if you're able to tell students or whoever you're lecturing your subjective view point. "Being...

I'm not saying that anyone should take drugs and then take their experience as the end-all-be-all, telling kids about their personal experiences. What I'm saying is that they should try drugs and experience the drug culture so that they themselves can assess the relative accuracy of their information.
Most of what this guy talked about wasn't the effects (the high) associated with various drugs. He talked more about what kinds of people do drugs, how that affects their lives, how marijuana affects the brain and lungs, things like that. And he was wrong on every account. He also threw a lot of personal judgements into his lecture, conclusions that he came to completely on his own. His attitude was often "this is the way it is because that's what I think makes sense". And then I'd tell him why it didn't make sense and he refused to acknowledge that. He had no argument other than "you're wrong, I'm right". This yahoo should not be allowed to teach anyone about this subject in which he not only has no experience, but the third hand information he does have is WRONG!
Also, the National Cancer Institute has confirmed that marijuana kills breast and lung cancer cells.

@AtheisticMystic I'm not saying that anyone should take drugs and then take their experience as the end-all-be-all, telling kids...

"What I'm saying is that they should try drugs and experience the drug culture so that they themselves can assess the relative accuracy of their information." That's the exact same thing as experiencing drugs in their subjective opinion. The guy at your school is not how all people who talk about drugs without experiencing them are. Experience or none, you can still be wrong. It's an irrelevant variable.

@Frank_n_Furter "What I'm saying is that they should try drugs and experience the drug culture so that they themselves can assess...

Of course you can be wrong with or without experience, but that certainly doesn't make experience irrelevant. Would you rather trust someone that has all the book knowledge in the world about drugs and no experience, or someone that has all the book knowledge in the world about drugs and lots of experience?

AtheisticMystics avatar AtheisticMystic Yeah You Are +1Reply
@AtheisticMystic Of course you can be wrong with or without experience, but that certainly doesn't make experience irrelevant. Would...

If they both have the same book knowledge and it's accurate, then that plus experience of course, but I don't believe someone with no experience has no right to lecture about it because someone with more experience isn't automatically more knowledgeable.

@Frank_n_Furter If they both have the same book knowledge and it's accurate, then that plus experience of course, but I don't...

I suppose you're right, someone without experience can be knowledgeable. But in every case that I've seen, that is not how it goes. I have never encountered someone without experience in the field of drugs who actually knew what they were talking about.
Usually, the reason that the person in question has no experience is that he/she is against drug use. People with that viewpoint generally "educate" themselves with information from biased sources because that information is what they want to believe.

@AtheisticMystic I'm not saying that anyone should take drugs and then take their experience as the end-all-be-all, telling kids...

"What I'm saying is that they should try drugs and experience the drug culture so that they themselves can assess the relative accuracy of their information." That's the exact same thing as experiencing drugs in their subjective opinion. The guy at your school is not how all people who talk about drugs without experiencing them are. Experience or none, you can still be wrong- It's an irrelevant variable.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.