Whether it kills brain cells or kills cancer cells; whether it's a gateway drug or an end-point drug; whether using it is moral or immoral – Uruguay did the only sane thing remaining after years of overblown rhetoric by anti-drug idiots versus pro-drug idiots, and we can only hope the rest of the world learns something.
For this I commend Uruguay, whatever else their problems and failings. Thanks for having actual human beings in your government and treating your populace like actual, rational, grown-adult human beings as well.
I honestly don't know why neither pro-nor-anti marijuana people in the rest of the world have become so humorless about the issue. What a bunch of stunted robot shits, maybe Bukowski was right when he said weed kills your soul – but he was a soulless drunk himself.
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
5/9/12
Recent News Suggests that the Swiss are Idiots Too
Recent news suggests that the Swiss, long known for looking down at other countries for wars and stupid decisions, have a tendency to be pretty stupid, too. Having a rave at a zoo is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of, since any legit raves take place in abandoned warehouses or vampire nightclubs.
Stupid event planning like this is bound to lead to problems. This story wouldn't even have existed in a rational world organized by logical thinkers and responsible adults. However... c'est la vie.
The dummy crowd have claimed another two victims, which weren't even human, at literally the dumbest possible event. There were few other outcomes than dead animals and a shocked public. The User Comment Rodeo v1.2x instantly pinged the most interesting and unthinkable response, which I felt compelled to post here so as to offer context:
This scathing, ignorant, and extremely stupid post basically reflects all the many things that are wrong with the story. These animals didn't belong in Switzerland – at all. But whatever, animals in captivity should be allowed to live fruitless and unfulfilling lives for the entertainment of religious wieners who believe that animals in captivity are precious and that there's nothing wrong with harvesting a few for the benefit of the public.
On the other hand this post is obviously a troll, from the double-single-standard animal abuse refrain that the evildoers be made to suffer to the same extent of their animal victims. Fucking dolphins overdosed at a rave. This world is evidently a few idiots away from a critical mass of stupidity, arrogance, and incompetence that will likely remain unnoticed for years.
Some Swiss losers deserve to have their drugs taken away from them, forever, for attending this insane farce of an event. The fools who organized this event should have their event-planning licenses revoked in perpetuity. The zoo is obviously going to buy two new dolphins and I'm sorry for their loss, even if I don't agree with their policies or whoever vetted this insane rave.
Stupid event planning like this is bound to lead to problems. This story wouldn't even have existed in a rational world organized by logical thinkers and responsible adults. However... c'est la vie.
The dummy crowd have claimed another two victims, which weren't even human, at literally the dumbest possible event. There were few other outcomes than dead animals and a shocked public. The User Comment Rodeo v1.2x instantly pinged the most interesting and unthinkable response, which I felt compelled to post here so as to offer context:
This scathing, ignorant, and extremely stupid post basically reflects all the many things that are wrong with the story. These animals didn't belong in Switzerland – at all. But whatever, animals in captivity should be allowed to live fruitless and unfulfilling lives for the entertainment of religious wieners who believe that animals in captivity are precious and that there's nothing wrong with harvesting a few for the benefit of the public.
On the other hand this post is obviously a troll, from the double-single-standard animal abuse refrain that the evildoers be made to suffer to the same extent of their animal victims. Fucking dolphins overdosed at a rave. This world is evidently a few idiots away from a critical mass of stupidity, arrogance, and incompetence that will likely remain unnoticed for years.
Some Swiss losers deserve to have their drugs taken away from them, forever, for attending this insane farce of an event. The fools who organized this event should have their event-planning licenses revoked in perpetuity. The zoo is obviously going to buy two new dolphins and I'm sorry for their loss, even if I don't agree with their policies or whoever vetted this insane rave.
4/25/12
Well, No, Actually... Pt. 1
News is, at heart, a predictable beast. Whenever news stories follow the deranged, subnormal individuals of the deranged species known as humankind, there is a certain amount of inexplicable posturing and bristling. So a forty year old woman almost died eating a hamburger that weighed in at almost 10,000 calories, or enough food energy to feed two normal human beings for a week, or keep one, at minimum, alive for three weeks.
Excess is nothing new. Billions are spent on dumb, unwholesome, or dangerous things each day. Governments don't blink at billion dollar stealth fighters, million-inmate prisons, or corporate welfare. It only makes sense that governments such as spend money and run incredible deficits are propped up by fat, ungainly, mentally inadequate wasters who waste money in a similar manner.
The metaphor is clear: social arteries are hardening from lack of vigor and surfeit of fatty junk expenditure. We don't want to help the poor, at all, because it's their fault that society failed them and they're addicted to drugs or gambling or they're mentally ill. Meanwhile soft-hearted activists agitate for safe-injections sites for addicts. All of this means that the destitute and drug-addled are left to rot and roundly despised for being filthy, druggy pieces of shit with no redeeming features - mini politicians who would shank a much better individual for twenty dollars and change.
All these stories are seemingly designed to destroy my ability to sympathize. I can no longer approach many stories with pity or empathy or understanding. This woman should be burned for energy, or thrown into a diamond mine, or made to prepare her own food. The story cited here suggests that the problem is that people 'eat out' too often and that they should be encouraged to eat healthily and at home.
Fine. Or we can write these dumb pieces of shit off and stop supporting them at all. No hospitalization, no news stories, no free food for fat fucks. If we let some addicts rot, we should let them all rot. There is no obesity crisis: certain people are destroying themselves. Let them. They will not be missed.
Also, there is no obesity crisis. Some people are actually bound to be fat. Fat people exist outside of the caricature of fast-food swilling, eat-while-they-drive, cankle-waddling shits. It's similar to how thin people exist without bulimia, cigarettes, starvation, or the modelling industry.
Of course a sensationalist has to jump in and report the unreportable. This isn't news. It's social pathology that nobody pays attention to, because the reporters, when they can spell correctly, can hardly be expected to imagine that all of this might mean something.
Excess is nothing new. Billions are spent on dumb, unwholesome, or dangerous things each day. Governments don't blink at billion dollar stealth fighters, million-inmate prisons, or corporate welfare. It only makes sense that governments such as spend money and run incredible deficits are propped up by fat, ungainly, mentally inadequate wasters who waste money in a similar manner.
The metaphor is clear: social arteries are hardening from lack of vigor and surfeit of fatty junk expenditure. We don't want to help the poor, at all, because it's their fault that society failed them and they're addicted to drugs or gambling or they're mentally ill. Meanwhile soft-hearted activists agitate for safe-injections sites for addicts. All of this means that the destitute and drug-addled are left to rot and roundly despised for being filthy, druggy pieces of shit with no redeeming features - mini politicians who would shank a much better individual for twenty dollars and change.
All these stories are seemingly designed to destroy my ability to sympathize. I can no longer approach many stories with pity or empathy or understanding. This woman should be burned for energy, or thrown into a diamond mine, or made to prepare her own food. The story cited here suggests that the problem is that people 'eat out' too often and that they should be encouraged to eat healthily and at home.
Fine. Or we can write these dumb pieces of shit off and stop supporting them at all. No hospitalization, no news stories, no free food for fat fucks. If we let some addicts rot, we should let them all rot. There is no obesity crisis: certain people are destroying themselves. Let them. They will not be missed.
Also, there is no obesity crisis. Some people are actually bound to be fat. Fat people exist outside of the caricature of fast-food swilling, eat-while-they-drive, cankle-waddling shits. It's similar to how thin people exist without bulimia, cigarettes, starvation, or the modelling industry.
Of course a sensationalist has to jump in and report the unreportable. This isn't news. It's social pathology that nobody pays attention to, because the reporters, when they can spell correctly, can hardly be expected to imagine that all of this might mean something.
4/30/11
User Comment Rodeo: The Saga Continues
Sometimes a habit becomes a tradition, and then everyone venerates or denigrates it as they see fit. Once this happens the only rational thing for a human being to do is to abandon whatever the fuss is being made about. Just concentrate on increasing the distance between yourself and that thing. You don't talk about it, you don't think about it, and most importantly, if you do it, you don't make a big deal about it.
Carbonated beverages are probably the third dumbest consumer beverage, coming in after bottled water and slightly behind energy drinks. When it comes to poisoning yourself I tend to think like the Greeks: hemlock or bust. Why stretch the suffering out over years and why pretend it doesn't harm you? What's wrong with alcoholism? Why do some people avoid the bottle but fall for the Full Throttle?
Fortunately I'm not here to answer those questions. Shit I barely even understand them, or the complex consumer economics research that goes into creating them. However we all know that the people who invented bottled water became incredibly rich shortly after the year 2000, and the people who mass marketed energy drinks became rich shortly thereafter. (These data for North American markets only). The grandfather product that all these imitators were imitating was the venerable Coca Cola, brand extraordinaire!
While cigarettes and booze were repeatedly demonized throughout the 1900s, Coca Cola took some mild flak for involving cocaine in their recipe. Profit flowed as freely as the drink flowed out of the iconic bottle's neck. Times were great. An hundred years later and things are still fantastic. Coke managed to survive the 80s, managed to survive all competition, and even managed to survive moralism and nutrito-facism. There is no stopping Coke, or any soft drink, and I think that's wrong.
All they do is sell you poison. Sugar liquor, by any other name, with ingredients you wouldn't throw on your worst enemy. Pepsi, Coke, independent manufacturers. When sugar was demonized in the 80s they all switched to carcinogenic sweeteners that people still drink and that have not been banned. You know when drinking gets serious? It gets serious when you mix white rum and Diet Coke, because all you have to do is add a tylenol to nuke your liver for good. When you recover, just blame the alcohol.
Carbonated beverages are probably the third dumbest consumer beverage, coming in after bottled water and slightly behind energy drinks. When it comes to poisoning yourself I tend to think like the Greeks: hemlock or bust. Why stretch the suffering out over years and why pretend it doesn't harm you? What's wrong with alcoholism? Why do some people avoid the bottle but fall for the Full Throttle?
Fortunately I'm not here to answer those questions. Shit I barely even understand them, or the complex consumer economics research that goes into creating them. However we all know that the people who invented bottled water became incredibly rich shortly after the year 2000, and the people who mass marketed energy drinks became rich shortly thereafter. (These data for North American markets only). The grandfather product that all these imitators were imitating was the venerable Coca Cola, brand extraordinaire!
While cigarettes and booze were repeatedly demonized throughout the 1900s, Coca Cola took some mild flak for involving cocaine in their recipe. Profit flowed as freely as the drink flowed out of the iconic bottle's neck. Times were great. An hundred years later and things are still fantastic. Coke managed to survive the 80s, managed to survive all competition, and even managed to survive moralism and nutrito-facism. There is no stopping Coke, or any soft drink, and I think that's wrong.
All they do is sell you poison. Sugar liquor, by any other name, with ingredients you wouldn't throw on your worst enemy. Pepsi, Coke, independent manufacturers. When sugar was demonized in the 80s they all switched to carcinogenic sweeteners that people still drink and that have not been banned. You know when drinking gets serious? It gets serious when you mix white rum and Diet Coke, because all you have to do is add a tylenol to nuke your liver for good. When you recover, just blame the alcohol.
1/28/11
Harmless News Story or Intentionally Downplayed Opportunity for Ethical Boycott?
A story I happened to read today developed serious undertones of 'Age of Indifference' malaise in less than five minutes. The first embarrassing part of the story is that, while the article is posted in the 'Diversions 'n Oddities' section, it's a story about drug catapults on the Arizona-Mexico border. This has to be some kind of lesson in provincialism in news reporting, right? This is better than indifference. This is global indifference in the two best flavours: national and international.
Some day in the future, maybe, a disastrous-drug-trade-related story can be proven to be as completely harmless and stupid as a high-school physics project gone wrong, or some other comic situation. I don't meant to play 'morally-outraged idiot', but in this case I thought maybe there was some point to the dumb act, and I thought, goddamn, if the drug markets were slightly different, Mexico wouldn't have hooked even one investigator or digital repeater from the sensationalistic, tone-deaf, and apparently forgetful global media. Shit, before I forget: if Reagan had jumped on only one ideological grenade, he could have entirely prevented the Cuban Cigarette Boat Crisis in the 1980's.
The worst part is that the United State's economic blind eye is, as ever, responsible. The typical hot-and-cold relationship to drugs does enough damage (allegedly; yes; in some cases) to society on an individual scale, let alone a national one. While ignoring the right of civilian domestic supply with various measures, which are only now beginning to erode, it has created a drug bottleneck which has been exploited in many iterations, and in many ways throughout recent history.
What is most terrifying is to imagine the hypocrisy of ethical consumers in America who smoke marijuana (allegedly a small group of people, which is a rumor I find distasteful) who are apparently funding a small, ongoing war. Hippies, and maybe even a majority of unethical users, have problems with people being shot or decapitated. That is Bad Stuff in any language, but maybe not in the lingo of the much ballyhooed, tech-fueled 'age of indifference'. Even those considered politically conservative can agree that outsourcing profit that could be nationalized is a ridiculous proposition, right? And conservative moralists, do you really wish anyone to be killed, even as a result of inaction, and then ignore the moral or ethical implications? These the traditional enemies of marijuana and other drugs are of course oblivious to any argument about glasses or half-fullness.
Everyone is entitled to indifference. I am of the opinion that being indifferent to pretty much everything is alright, but I may have to change my opinions on things, because I can sense what the losing proposition is. If nobody plays their cards right there's a lot of dissatisfaction at the table, and it is all exactly as Kenny Rogers prophesied.
So there's one boycott of commodities the United States consumes regularly that can take place, potentially end a 'diversion' on its own border, without crippling its economy – perhaps even stimulating it. For my money, the dirtiest economism of all is 'ethical consumption', which is similar in smut-factor to the 'cap and trade'. The only good thing about the economy is that it is still a game that is somewhat open to just about anyone, unless one is blissfully in the gutter with an empty bottle of wine and no cash.
Surely there are even a handful of methadryl spillers in the USA who would put their honor where their high was for a few weeks if only to cripple the encroaching clusterfuck for a few years.
For those who are factotums to fact and nothing but the fact:
Some day in the future, maybe, a disastrous-drug-trade-related story can be proven to be as completely harmless and stupid as a high-school physics project gone wrong, or some other comic situation. I don't meant to play 'morally-outraged idiot', but in this case I thought maybe there was some point to the dumb act, and I thought, goddamn, if the drug markets were slightly different, Mexico wouldn't have hooked even one investigator or digital repeater from the sensationalistic, tone-deaf, and apparently forgetful global media. Shit, before I forget: if Reagan had jumped on only one ideological grenade, he could have entirely prevented the Cuban Cigarette Boat Crisis in the 1980's.
The worst part is that the United State's economic blind eye is, as ever, responsible. The typical hot-and-cold relationship to drugs does enough damage (allegedly; yes; in some cases) to society on an individual scale, let alone a national one. While ignoring the right of civilian domestic supply with various measures, which are only now beginning to erode, it has created a drug bottleneck which has been exploited in many iterations, and in many ways throughout recent history.
What is most terrifying is to imagine the hypocrisy of ethical consumers in America who smoke marijuana (allegedly a small group of people, which is a rumor I find distasteful) who are apparently funding a small, ongoing war. Hippies, and maybe even a majority of unethical users, have problems with people being shot or decapitated. That is Bad Stuff in any language, but maybe not in the lingo of the much ballyhooed, tech-fueled 'age of indifference'. Even those considered politically conservative can agree that outsourcing profit that could be nationalized is a ridiculous proposition, right? And conservative moralists, do you really wish anyone to be killed, even as a result of inaction, and then ignore the moral or ethical implications? These the traditional enemies of marijuana and other drugs are of course oblivious to any argument about glasses or half-fullness.
Everyone is entitled to indifference. I am of the opinion that being indifferent to pretty much everything is alright, but I may have to change my opinions on things, because I can sense what the losing proposition is. If nobody plays their cards right there's a lot of dissatisfaction at the table, and it is all exactly as Kenny Rogers prophesied.
So there's one boycott of commodities the United States consumes regularly that can take place, potentially end a 'diversion' on its own border, without crippling its economy – perhaps even stimulating it. For my money, the dirtiest economism of all is 'ethical consumption', which is similar in smut-factor to the 'cap and trade'. The only good thing about the economy is that it is still a game that is somewhat open to just about anyone, unless one is blissfully in the gutter with an empty bottle of wine and no cash.
Surely there are even a handful of methadryl spillers in the USA who would put their honor where their high was for a few weeks if only to cripple the encroaching clusterfuck for a few years.
For those who are factotums to fact and nothing but the fact:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)