Why hate Athiest?

[jstrodel]

Why are you so quick to defend drugs?

Luckie's defending personal responsibility, you moron.

No, she isn't. Addictive behaviors are not reducible solely to personal choices. It is a medical fact that drugs are addictive. I would never place the blame for my actions on anyone else but myself, but to fail to recognize the fact that drugs affect your brain and decision making directly is a serious problem.

What Luckie said is something that no doctor in America would ever say. She did not say that people have personal responsibility. She repeated a common drug addict lie that "drugs aren't responsible for peoples problems, people are".

The confusion that centers around the dual roles that drug use and the role of personal decisions is not something you will see many medicals doctors talking about. It is what you will see enlightened 18 year olds on erowid arguing back and forth about, as well as crackheads, and the people in between. Drugs are addictive, period.

There is no debating this. Drugs affect the brain directly, why not just stop in your tracks and accept that both the physical composition of drugs and their relationship to neurochemistry AND individual behavior play a role in addiction and be an adult instead of living in the fantasy world of the super-smart internet exotic psychedelic user who knows everything and is one step ahead of the medical community.

[Darkstar]

[Mystical]

[thesummerqueen]

So I noticed strodel gave me kudos on my statement on never having even smoked pot. I'd like to qualify this statement.

As I stated in the "smoking" thread - I have a smoke allergy. I cannot abide the smoke of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, incense...even bonfires out in the open will tax me. At first I'm "okay". Later in the night, if I'm lucky, it'll just be hard to breathe - possibly alleviated with an inhaler. If I'm not, my sinuses will start getting affected, turning into a sinus headache that can explode into a migraine. The problem seems to be getting worse as I get older (I'm about to turn 28) but I've had the sensitivity since I was 15. I selfishly can't go against states forcing public places to be smoke free, or restaurants, because now I can go to the bars with my friends and not spend the entire next day either suffering, or catatonic in bed.

So no, I haven't smoked pot. However, at the suggestion of others I'm quite willing to try it vaporized. Not in brownies though - I don't fuck up chocolate. Haven't gotten around to it though - they do randomized drug screenings here at work, and I'm lazy.

I feel the same about several other drugs, except with those I was more worried about someone being around that I could trust in case I had a bad trip. My boyfriend is the only one I would trust, and we've only been living together for two months now. There hasn't been time to dick around that way with all the life changes we've gone through (job changes, moving, visiting from parents, blah blah.)

I kudos'd luckie because that's the position both David and I hold. Personal responsibility comes first. Keeping nicotine and alcohol legal and marijuana (and several other drugs) illegal is a massive state of hypocrisy that only the government could come up with. Namely because they earn massive quantities of money off of the first two, provided everyone follows the laws laid down about their consumption.

I am very sorry about the things any of you have gone through, although I find it hilarious that all of the rationalist atheist ex-druggies I've talked to on here (and please let me know if I'm misremembering) have discussed addiction in terms of personal responsibility, freedom to choose, and discussion about the underlying cause of taking the drug to begin with, and all of the Christian ex-druggies treat the drug like it's a magically imbued source of evil...sort of the way hippies talk about non-organic food, or fundies treat Ouija boards.

Personal opinion: I find AA to be reprehensible in their values, but much as I acknowledge that some people need religion to remind them to be good the way parents must remind children, I realize some people need AA to function without their addiction. Perhaps it's the sense of community which church also provides. And then there's my ex-boyfriend's family. Failed church-goers and failed AA-attendees, many of them. Saturday night alcoholics...bible-thumping Sunday baptists - if they're not too hungover. Perhaps if someone had preached personal responsibility at them instead of Jesus, a few of them would be doing better.

[jstrodel]

[thesummerqueen]

Atheism has fuck all to do with drugs, mate, unless losing one's faith causes one to go into a depressive slide that includes drugs. I know way too many drug-taking theists though. Try again.

[jstrodel]

Again, not all drugs are addictive, strodel. Not physically. And if it's addictive mentally thats the persons fault, not the drugs. And my point still stands that a person like that can become addicted to sniffing baby powder or something. It does matter what their addiction is because some addictive substances like crack (which is physically addictive), will ruin your life.

You don't know what you are talking about and I'm not going to debate it further. This statement is factually inaccurate, if you were a medical doctor and you told people this, you would lose your license. You don't know anything about addiction. Do you know what a dendrite is? Of course you don't, you have stupid junkie wisdom and you share it as if that makes you a doctor. You are harming others with your ignorance of science and addiction.

What you just said is pure poison. Psychologically addictive drugs are very dangerous. It most definitely is not all the users fault.

I'm not going to debate it further. Topics like this "are psychologically addictive drugs really dangerous or is the medical community a big conspiracy" are not things that people should debate intellectually. If you are an honest person, go talk to your doctor, ask him if "psychologically addictive drugs are just as dangerous as baby powder". See what he says.

[Nine]

If you are an honest person, go talk to your doctor, ask him if "psychologically addictive drugs are just as dangerous as baby powder". See what he says.

A cool doctor might say "It depends what you do with them."

[jstrodel]

I am very sorry about the things any of you have gone through, although I find it hilarious that all of the rationalist atheist ex-druggies I've talked to on here (and please let me know if I'm misremembering) have discussed addiction in terms of personal responsibility, freedom to choose, and discussion about the underlying cause of taking the drug to begin with, and all of the Christian ex-druggies treat the drug like it's a magically imbued source of evil...sort of the way hippies talk about non-organic food, or fundies treat Ouija boards.

I could go on and on about the effects of each drugs, the positive medicinal effects, balance positive and negatives. Obviously many pharmaceuticals are psychoactive drugs. This is the thing, as soon as you start talking about those things, it makes it more likely that people will use the drugs. When I talk about drugs, I want people to hear what I say and not use them.

Obviously there are many factors underneath a decision to use drugs. But people can stop using drugs. It is both. But there is nothing good about abusing drugs.

Why can't people make up their minds that they feel they have responsibility for those around them, to love them and care for them, like a parent loves his children? What is wrong about caring about people? Drugs are bad.

[Mister Agenda]

Sometimes it's the stereotypical idea about atheists being not respectful & actually insult religious people & mock them.

Stereotypically? Really? Insults and mockery of religion is the norm, rather than the exception on these forums. You cannot say the same for believers, who are normally respectful and gracious, and insulting comments are the exceptions.

It's been my experience on this forum that theist posters run as rude as atheist posters. Perhaps you think the theist posters are more gracious because they are less likely to use 'bad' words, but respectful and gracious are terms I'd apply to only a minority of theist posters. I do include you in that minority, but I think your bias is showing. I could make a very long post quoting hateful things said by theists on this forum and only scratch the surface. There wasn't even a whole page between your post and jstrodel showing up and saying things like 'atheists are commonly liars'.