d r u g s
- Thread starter zhao
- Start date
N
nomadologist
Guest
Haha. No, I raised that at my straight job at a biomedical research uni.
Worked wiv Nobel Prize winners. Actually even worked with the scientists who discovered methadone!! Even they think it's outmoded and all-around whack except as a tool of social control on the streets.
Worked wiv Nobel Prize winners. Actually even worked with the scientists who discovered methadone!! Even they think it's outmoded and all-around whack except as a tool of social control on the streets.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Everything I hear about that stuff makes it sound like a more harmful version of heroin, only minus the enjoyable part. Some invention. (no 'fence to your scientist buddies)
N
nomadologist
Guest
Well, it is certainly much stronger. It was the cleanest, strongest high I ever had, and in fact, the first opiate I ever tried! I took a 40MG pill that I found in my friend's place when a few of us were staying over one summer while she was in Paris. It was almost sexual the high--I really felt like every cell in my body was having an orgasm for at least 8 hours.
The advantage of it is that it is mroe easily controlled, and it being stronger, it is the only thing whose lure can match h's. So you take a bunch of impoverished street junkies and control their dose, make it so their risk of contracting HIV/hepatitis/etc. goes down, and ostensibly street crime and other violence goes down. This worked for a while until they discovered that dual opiate agonists/antagonists bind TIGHTER than methadone to your receptors, without getting you the least bit high. These are MIRACULOUS. They're simply miraculous. They work. You can detox in 4 or 5 days and then taper off them within a week or two.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
And this is still the case?
I've worked with drug addicts [chronic alcoholics too], and attended the funerals of more than enough of them over the years, thank you very much. You're taking this all too personally, Nomad. As you well know, there are problems with drug addiction, and they extend far beyond the addiction itself. But anyone who alludes to this should just fuck off, of course ... [as every alcoholic and drug addict I've ever met has always insisted].
N
nomadologist
Guest
I'm clean right now, for your information. Number one.
I'm not selling hard drugs right now, either. But I don't feel I owe you any explanation.
I've been to my fair share of funerals, as well. And I never said drugs were *good*, now, did I ? Why would you attack me with this insinuation, then? I have no idea.
I'm not selling hard drugs right now, either. But I don't feel I owe you any explanation.
I've been to my fair share of funerals, as well. And I never said drugs were *good*, now, did I ? Why would you attack me with this insinuation, then? I have no idea.
N
nomadologist
Guest
And yes, I still need to eat.
N
nomadologist
Guest
And I have no idea whom the "sex addict" comment was lobbed at, but honey, I doubt anyone who spends as much time on message boards as most of the regular posts here do are "sex addicts", unless porn counts.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
I'm not asking for any 'explanation', though I'm intrigued by your desire to parade all your personal details on a public forum, as I have no desire or interest in insulting you.
Nomad, it is you who ruthlessly personalizes your posts. You do it all the time. Then when anyone questions any aspect of what you do, of what you've openly revealed, you immediately claim Victimization, while telling the interloper to fuck off and mind his/her own business. Very ... Oprah Winfrey.
N
nomadologist
Guest
I talk about things that I have experienced, because frankly I don't give a shit about the fucking internet. It means nothing to me. It is a vague distraction from more consequential things in my life. There are some interesting people on here; I try to discuss things that are relevant to me and see if I might be able to connect with anyone, agree with them, have an interesting discussion.
See, the thing is, the internet is a pretty transparent medium. You may think you "hide" yourself, but the person who you really are is readily apparent to everyone, especially after you've been posting somewhere for long enough. It's really no big mystery what HMLT's foibles are, believe it or not.
I don't care if people want to talk about drugs being bad, or if they want to seriously talk about my drug addiction with me--I obviously have no issue with that. I make fun of myself, usually, to spare other people the trouble.
What I don't appreciate are constant barbs where people try to establish their Moral Leftist Superiority based on whether they do or don't do drugs. This IS EXACTLY what you did that pissed me off. If you'd like I'll cut and paste the quote in. I don't care if you want to talk about my drug addiction--go for it--I mind if you're going to get on some morally superior head trip because you think a thread about drugs is boring.
You're not exactly the Left's fucking Messiah yourself, so let's not kid ourselves.
See, the thing is, the internet is a pretty transparent medium. You may think you "hide" yourself, but the person who you really are is readily apparent to everyone, especially after you've been posting somewhere for long enough. It's really no big mystery what HMLT's foibles are, believe it or not.
I don't care if people want to talk about drugs being bad, or if they want to seriously talk about my drug addiction with me--I obviously have no issue with that. I make fun of myself, usually, to spare other people the trouble.
What I don't appreciate are constant barbs where people try to establish their Moral Leftist Superiority based on whether they do or don't do drugs. This IS EXACTLY what you did that pissed me off. If you'd like I'll cut and paste the quote in. I don't care if you want to talk about my drug addiction--go for it--I mind if you're going to get on some morally superior head trip because you think a thread about drugs is boring.
You're not exactly the Left's fucking Messiah yourself, so let's not kid ourselves.
N
nomadologist
Guest
I never, NOT ONCE, ever told ANYONE to "mind their business" about something I'd already told them. In fact, I've usually ended up qualifying my initial confession and ADDING MORE DETAIL, to make myself more clear.
I have no problems with strangers on an internet forum knowing my business. I have problems with people who think they are politically superior because their drug of choice is different from mine.
I have no problems with strangers on an internet forum knowing my business. I have problems with people who think they are politically superior because their drug of choice is different from mine.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
No, you announce them ... ostentaciously.
Presumably this is why you get so annoyed whenever you're taken to task on the 'means nothing' fucking internet?
Sorry, Nomad, but I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'person'. I make judgements on the basis of the text I read here, not on some imagined 'personality' hiding behind such text. And attempting to discredit someone via character assassination because you disagree with their considered position on drugs is no longer a serious discussion. This thread has largely been about wallowing in and glorifying drug 'culture' ('it's fun'); fine, wallow in it, but don't you ever fucking dare discredit those who genuinely analyse the wider, destructive consequences of such ignorant self-centred wallowing ...
That was a trivializing slogan that Tea posted.
But it is you who wants to do that. Again, you do it all the time. I made no comment on your addiction, I was talking about drugs generally. [But the irony here is indeed breath-taking: you admit to being a drug addict, but fuck-off to anyone who might suggest that this is a problem.]
Don't be ridiculous. Whether I or anyone else does drugs or not is really irrelevant to any proper rational discussion here, Nomad, as should be obvious by now. And its not a 'moral' issue either. Is cancer a 'moral' issue?
What are you talking about, Nomad? I said that drugs are destructive (they are destructive); there's nothing 'superior' about such a position. In fact, its actually one you otherwise agree with. Really, your 'drug of choice' nonsense here is so self-indulgent consumerist-conformist as to completely undermine all your past contributions on theory on this forum. But then, is it the case that theory, like the internet, ultimately means 'nothing to you' too?
Cheers and Take care, Nomad.
N
nomadologist
Guest
I would love to do something about the world's problems. I would love to! But since when is posting about Lacan somehow doing something *more* than anyone else is on a net forum? If YOU can't see the irony in this position, I seriously doubt whether you've even once grasped half of the post-Freudian thinkers you claim to have read.
Mostly as a joke, but then again, humor is not your strong suit.
Am I really that annoyed? I just expected more from you.
See above. YOU were the one who resorted to that first. You can pretend that avatars don't have "personalities", but that would just betray your sore lack of understanding of virtuality, wouldn't it?
As any clinical psychologist SHOULD know, admitting to being a drug addict IS admitting that you have a problem. I've always been the first to admit this.
Aren't you the one who has typically agreed that capitalism as a virus has turned society/desire itself into pathology-cum-addiction? Why does this suddenly get tossed out the window when *you* get involved.
I like theory, but I don't really care about the internet. Sure, this thread idea was stupid, but it was started for a reason. I don't read threads about subjects I don't find interesting--I don't think it's entirely out of line to suggest that you do the same.
After all, if you really think coming onto a thread to complain about peoples' attitudes about drugs is *doing* something about it in the sense of positive political action, I really can't take YOUR politics seriously, either.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Pointing out that alcoholism is no less pathological or destructive than heroin addiction or any other addiction is "consumerist-conformist"? I really did think you were a lot smarter than this.
bassnation
the abyss
this is very black and white - conflating all drugs with death is as ludicrous as associating all drinking with alcoholism. to be fair you don't really talk about drinking much, but there is a sense from your posts that your drugs are acceptable, while others are not.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Screaming infant with crystal skull. A wretched core of bony grieving.
Drugs' pleasure/compulsion/addiction nexus as metaphor for Capital is apt here really HMLT: to a certain extent whilst any vaguely intelligent individual will realise fairly rapidly that Narcotics are unlikely in their present form to be a fertile site of anything other than solipsistic consumerist self-indulgence there remains a sense of conflict, of hypocrisy perhaps, but overall a conflicted sense of allegiance... And this is never more so than in (recovered) drug addicts, there is the firm knowledge that they are totally unproductive if not mortally self-destructive, but there is another sense that they remain unwilling to totally revoke the concept of them at some level. In a similar way to people inside consumer-capitalism there is a sense of bad faith or cognitive dissonance surrounding most pleasurable pursuits (which is not limited merely to religiously derived guilt) and never more so than with anyone claiming sympathy with revolutionary positions- on the one hand we know that we must relinquish all distractions (which can encompass many more categories of self-indulgence asides from drugs- they are merely the most concrete and obvious example of an effective control system... but most forms of youth culture can easily be placed in the same category, even professional academia often effectively serves to stave off anything ACTUALLY happening... ) on the other hand under consumer-capital it is immensely difficult to disentangle our identities away from these things... How much is salvageable, how much must be rescinded...? What was it about the concept of drugs that attracted the user to them in the first place, and what of that can be utilised as against the almost meaningless organic reality? Their efficacy as a buffer for hegemonic forces rests upon their ability to function as a diversionary force- they offer the illusion of escape, of rebellion, of DOING SOMETHING, of attempting to redefine subjectivity perhaps, but inevitably they end up doing anything but.
Nomad's position is perfectly understandable and does not I think undermine her theoretical standpoint in any sense- only a fool would take her as unambiguously endorsing hard drug use over the course of her postings on the matter... and in essence within consumerism every one of us is so entangled in its meshes that a degree of hypocrisy is inevitable- we must all live on a day-to-day basis after all... riddled with conflict... though it is vital of course to not disavow this dissonance...
I am in total agreement with you though on the utter banality of the "its fun" argument-- its precisely when I discovered that the majority of drug use is entirely as un-analytical in its current form as this that any residual appeal ebbed away ("its JUST fun? How disappointing... " and the endless insufferable demand "whatever you do don't think too hard about it..." to which the obvious answer remains "If so what is the fucking point?") I realise however that your primary objection is to the inane poll at the top of this thread, which as you accurately diagnose is alarmingly uncritical in its perspective (Heroin as consumer choice? Hilariously accurate yet distasteful all the same).
Whilst it is true that hard drug use must not be allowed a degree of normalisation offered by uncritical attitudes at the same time a hysterically hectoring morally superior approach is just as dangerous in terms of legitimating drug use as a seductively easy image of rebellion- "conservative and boring" is definitely a better discursive strategy- indeed rather than trying to demonstrate how dangerous drugs are as a preventative method perhaps showing how the powers that be are only too happy, no matter what they say, to have some of the more dangerous elements of society rendered into useless blobs of drug-hungry flesh, would be more effective?
The question of whether drug use could be reconstituted into a non-harmful/revolutionary/cerebral/experimental form is one that goes un-answered- It seems clear to me that most if not all of the negative impacts of drug use relate to the lack of any context asides from "fun"- obviously in the 1960s there were attempts to create a different context, but this seems ultimately to have been ineffective, operating merely as an alibi for supine hippies to differentiate their own enjoyment from that of their parents...
Nomad's position is perfectly understandable and does not I think undermine her theoretical standpoint in any sense- only a fool would take her as unambiguously endorsing hard drug use over the course of her postings on the matter... and in essence within consumerism every one of us is so entangled in its meshes that a degree of hypocrisy is inevitable- we must all live on a day-to-day basis after all... riddled with conflict... though it is vital of course to not disavow this dissonance...
I am in total agreement with you though on the utter banality of the "its fun" argument-- its precisely when I discovered that the majority of drug use is entirely as un-analytical in its current form as this that any residual appeal ebbed away ("its JUST fun? How disappointing... " and the endless insufferable demand "whatever you do don't think too hard about it..." to which the obvious answer remains "If so what is the fucking point?") I realise however that your primary objection is to the inane poll at the top of this thread, which as you accurately diagnose is alarmingly uncritical in its perspective (Heroin as consumer choice? Hilariously accurate yet distasteful all the same).
Whilst it is true that hard drug use must not be allowed a degree of normalisation offered by uncritical attitudes at the same time a hysterically hectoring morally superior approach is just as dangerous in terms of legitimating drug use as a seductively easy image of rebellion- "conservative and boring" is definitely a better discursive strategy- indeed rather than trying to demonstrate how dangerous drugs are as a preventative method perhaps showing how the powers that be are only too happy, no matter what they say, to have some of the more dangerous elements of society rendered into useless blobs of drug-hungry flesh, would be more effective?
The question of whether drug use could be reconstituted into a non-harmful/revolutionary/cerebral/experimental form is one that goes un-answered- It seems clear to me that most if not all of the negative impacts of drug use relate to the lack of any context asides from "fun"- obviously in the 1960s there were attempts to create a different context, but this seems ultimately to have been ineffective, operating merely as an alibi for supine hippies to differentiate their own enjoyment from that of their parents...
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
Thanks, Gek, this articulates my position much better than i was last night.
I would never advocate drug use as some sort of magic bullet, or solution to anything at all. I am living proof that drugs have a strong corrosive effect on individuals. I'm just not going to say they don't have a powerfully *sexual* and/or *conceptual* pull to them, either.
You quoted Deleuze in another thread on the idea of drugs-without-drugs, at the level of a concept... here we go...
I know for a fact that it is possible to be intoxicated in a similar fashion via merely conceptually engaging with the idea of a drug, (try reading a description of the effects of crack and not start to get a high from the mere idea...) but can you take this further and synthesize entirely new conceptual drugs... following impossible new patterns of affect?
bassnation
the abyss
pity you don't have a phd in biochemistry gek!