Showing posts with label drug addiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drug addiction. Show all posts
20140111
How to Cut Consumerism (satire)
People are so caught up in buying stuff they don't really need, that "spendaholic" is not a stupid joke but becoming more real.
A good example of this is the typical nerd who is a yuppie with a craving for technology, be it an $600 iPhone5S, an $1800 quadcore laptop with a 16" screen, or a phablet ranging from $300 to $500.
Imagine that that every device is crystal meth or ice or coke or pot.
Then that $600 iPhone5S is poke.
The quadcore laptop is $1800 of coke.
Even the phablet is a lot of crystal meth at $300 and enough coke to kill you at $500.
I am pretty sure $2800 of a mix of ice, coke and pot will keep you up for days into you enter your little psychotic episode brought to by amphetamine and its methylated child meth, cocaine and various THC derivatives.
In short, a technophile is addicted to technology. If he isn't making money using it, then it's just another addiction waiting for the next crisis to comfort him.
If you are a sex addict and can afford the shipping charges, then there's a sex doll for you for $3000 (vibrator optional)!
Fucking nerds, you're all addicts!
20131231
ADHD: Social Control Through Diagnosis and Medication (satire)
Within context of this article, the ADHD social construct consists of diagnosis by a trained professional after being referenced by a school psychologist. It also may include the use of ADHD medication and associated therapy in which both the child and his or her parents actively participate with an approved therapist. Overall, the actual intention of the ADHD diagnosis is to manage the behavior of children who are not compliant to the controlled school environment.
According to prevailing ADHD information, it is cheaper to medicate children diagnosed with ADHD than to provide therapy for them, considering that $200 of ADHD medication is cheaper than $1000 of therapy per year to the health insurance industry.
When methamphetamine is being used to treat ADHD along with the methamphetamine substitute Ritalin and the amphetamine Dexedrine and other ADHD drugs, what doctors who prescribe ADHD medication is actually doing is in effect manufacturing tomorrow's methamphetamine addict.
This is especially true of Desoxyn and Vyvanse users.
With the risk of addiction along with other side effects such as psychosis, I question the prescription of methamphetamine , amphetamine, and related ADHD drugs such as Adderall (a mixture of amphetamine and methamphetamine) Ritalin (a methamphetamine substitute), and Strattera (an ADHD medication purported to lack the side effects of amphetamine-like drugs but known to have behavioral side effects).
Often these ADHD medications are prescribed with the recommendation that they are "safe when used as directed". Yet the unrelated selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) Paxil was prescribed with the same warning but has been exposed as addictive, given the inability of some patients prescribed it to withdraw from Paxil completely.
For the addictive potential for amphetamines has been known since being prescribed for ADHD in 1937. However, such medication have reduced or no risk on rates of substance abuse among people with ADHD. This is because long use of medication may lead to bipolar disorder and schizophrenia arising as the child with ADHD matures into adulthood. This may be a psycho-social side effect of the ADHD social construct rather than a result of an actual disease.
Indeed, the mental health industry may be motivated by the strong desire of the elites to control the masses through diagnosis and medication so that they may profit from the middle class being rendered compliant to social control through affordable medication that bring quicker profits than costly therapeutic approaches.
Reference:
Inventor of ADHD said: ADHD is a Fictitious Disease: http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-03-27-NEWS-inventor-of-adhd-says-adhd-is-a-fictitious-disease.html
ADHD and medication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Medication
ADHD Controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhd_controversy
Paxil: Controversy - Paroxetine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroxetine#Controversy
Desoxyn - Methamphetamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
Dexedrine - Amphetamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine
Vyvanse - Methamphetamine prodrug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisdexamfetamine
Adderall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderall
Ritalin - Methylphenidate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate
Strattera - Atomoxetine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomoxetine
According to prevailing ADHD information, it is cheaper to medicate children diagnosed with ADHD than to provide therapy for them, considering that $200 of ADHD medication is cheaper than $1000 of therapy per year to the health insurance industry.
When methamphetamine is being used to treat ADHD along with the methamphetamine substitute Ritalin and the amphetamine Dexedrine and other ADHD drugs, what doctors who prescribe ADHD medication is actually doing is in effect manufacturing tomorrow's methamphetamine addict.
This is especially true of Desoxyn and Vyvanse users.
With the risk of addiction along with other side effects such as psychosis, I question the prescription of methamphetamine , amphetamine, and related ADHD drugs such as Adderall (a mixture of amphetamine and methamphetamine) Ritalin (a methamphetamine substitute), and Strattera (an ADHD medication purported to lack the side effects of amphetamine-like drugs but known to have behavioral side effects).
Often these ADHD medications are prescribed with the recommendation that they are "safe when used as directed". Yet the unrelated selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) Paxil was prescribed with the same warning but has been exposed as addictive, given the inability of some patients prescribed it to withdraw from Paxil completely.
For the addictive potential for amphetamines has been known since being prescribed for ADHD in 1937. However, such medication have reduced or no risk on rates of substance abuse among people with ADHD. This is because long use of medication may lead to bipolar disorder and schizophrenia arising as the child with ADHD matures into adulthood. This may be a psycho-social side effect of the ADHD social construct rather than a result of an actual disease.
Indeed, the mental health industry may be motivated by the strong desire of the elites to control the masses through diagnosis and medication so that they may profit from the middle class being rendered compliant to social control through affordable medication that bring quicker profits than costly therapeutic approaches.
Reference:
Inventor of ADHD said: ADHD is a Fictitious Disease: http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-03-27-NEWS-inventor-of-adhd-says-adhd-is-a-fictitious-disease.html
ADHD and medication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Medication
ADHD Controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhd_controversy
Paxil: Controversy - Paroxetine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroxetine#Controversy
Desoxyn - Methamphetamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
Dexedrine - Amphetamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine
Vyvanse - Methamphetamine prodrug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisdexamfetamine
Adderall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderall
Ritalin - Methylphenidate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate
Strattera - Atomoxetine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomoxetine
20131228
It's Not About the Drugs (satire)
Drug abuse is a health issue, not a legal one. It was only turned into a legal issue by the elites who blamed drug use after the 1960s on corrupting moral values, ignoring their role in creating the situation that led to increased drug use through the media.
The elites also blamed marijuana on Mexican immigrants and opium use on Chinese immigrants, so there is a racist element in the elites' demonization of drugs. Today, drug abuse has been associated with its side effect, homelessness, and thus has been the cause of poverty.
However, it is this dog-eat-dog world of competitiveness that is one causal factor in drug addiction. Additionally, drug abuse is a risk of which one of the causes is the increasing narcissism in society.
Just as there are fans of celebrities, there are fans of alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs, except that celebrity fandom only affects the pocketbook, whereas drug addiction is harmful not only in terms of money, but also to life and limb.
This is why you never ever see a poor person at a rock concert, because the money spent on a ticket could feed the poor for up to a week. As well, the average poor person is unlikely to become a drug addict. In fact, drug addiction is what puts the middle class into poverty.
If a poor person had a choice between drugs and a place to live, he'd choose a place to live. The myths about drug addiction are part of the overall plan of the elites to perpetuate class warfare between members of the middle class in a perverted form of social Darwinism that determines anyone who is rich is worthy of respect, despite the fact that most rich elites who profit immensely from the suffering of others are only de facto elites. For the only people who respect them are not their peers but a criminal lower in the social hierarchy. Overall, a poor person only fears drugs, because they prevent him from keeping that place to live.
It makes more sense if a working class person has a few beers and perhaps smokes occasionally. Both alcohol and cigarettes are legal drugs. However, the extremes of drug abuse dictate that loss of inhibition caused by alcohol might lead to soft drug use but common sense dictates that hard drug use is the result of risky behavior that places the future drug addict on a path of no return.
Yet drug addiction is not a path but a side effect of a person's spiral into poverty, be it economic if his addiction prevents him from working or merely spiritual if he maintains an income stream to support his addiction.
In most cases of addiction, environment is a strong causal factor. As a fan, everything is focused on the celebrity including becoming a fan along with all that celebrity's adoring fans. Likewise, drug addicts seek out their fellow drug addicts. For we are social animals, and the risks of being a harm to self and others is worsened by the use of drugs alone.
If you chose a celebrity over your drug of choice, that would be safer but I would question the safety of a fan who chooses her celebrity of choice over also having a life outside her bedroom.
Likewise, the drug addict who hides out in her bedroom will soon be removing the smoke alarm to stop going off due to pot smoke. Ultimately the chronic will end up behaving strangely like a certain celebrity who I won't mention since her chronic phase was a distortion of her life before pot. Additionally, most of it was exaggerated by celebrity gossip columns and the paparazzi stalkers who are sometimes failures at being petty criminals. It would not even surprise me that there are bottom feeders in the world of celebrities who plan to profit from being insiders of celebrities, provided they know the vices of their intended "victim".
For a drug addiction is also a side effect of being a narcissist, who makes a drug of his choice a part of his lifestyle, a dangerous accessory of a lifestyle where everyone and almost everything else is but an accessory and basically a means to the end, a reflection of his life.
Once rehabilitated, the former drug addict still face his character disturbance known as narcissism. It will mean giving up former friends of that lifestyle in some cases, and in other cases, changing the dynamics of other friends.
Yet there is no known cure for drug addiction. Instead, the former addict comes to realize life is simpler and less chaotic sober, and many times more valuable than intoxication. Indeed, the hang-ups of sobriety keep us all safe and secure.
For addiction and abuse is not about the drugs at all. Rather it is about the person behind the cravings, a person who only sees the world filled with the accessories which make her feel safe and secure. It is a pity that in the midst of abuse, we forget how precious our inhibitions truly are.
The elites also blamed marijuana on Mexican immigrants and opium use on Chinese immigrants, so there is a racist element in the elites' demonization of drugs. Today, drug abuse has been associated with its side effect, homelessness, and thus has been the cause of poverty.
However, it is this dog-eat-dog world of competitiveness that is one causal factor in drug addiction. Additionally, drug abuse is a risk of which one of the causes is the increasing narcissism in society.
Just as there are fans of celebrities, there are fans of alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs, except that celebrity fandom only affects the pocketbook, whereas drug addiction is harmful not only in terms of money, but also to life and limb.
This is why you never ever see a poor person at a rock concert, because the money spent on a ticket could feed the poor for up to a week. As well, the average poor person is unlikely to become a drug addict. In fact, drug addiction is what puts the middle class into poverty.
If a poor person had a choice between drugs and a place to live, he'd choose a place to live. The myths about drug addiction are part of the overall plan of the elites to perpetuate class warfare between members of the middle class in a perverted form of social Darwinism that determines anyone who is rich is worthy of respect, despite the fact that most rich elites who profit immensely from the suffering of others are only de facto elites. For the only people who respect them are not their peers but a criminal lower in the social hierarchy. Overall, a poor person only fears drugs, because they prevent him from keeping that place to live.
It makes more sense if a working class person has a few beers and perhaps smokes occasionally. Both alcohol and cigarettes are legal drugs. However, the extremes of drug abuse dictate that loss of inhibition caused by alcohol might lead to soft drug use but common sense dictates that hard drug use is the result of risky behavior that places the future drug addict on a path of no return.
Yet drug addiction is not a path but a side effect of a person's spiral into poverty, be it economic if his addiction prevents him from working or merely spiritual if he maintains an income stream to support his addiction.
In most cases of addiction, environment is a strong causal factor. As a fan, everything is focused on the celebrity including becoming a fan along with all that celebrity's adoring fans. Likewise, drug addicts seek out their fellow drug addicts. For we are social animals, and the risks of being a harm to self and others is worsened by the use of drugs alone.
If you chose a celebrity over your drug of choice, that would be safer but I would question the safety of a fan who chooses her celebrity of choice over also having a life outside her bedroom.
Likewise, the drug addict who hides out in her bedroom will soon be removing the smoke alarm to stop going off due to pot smoke. Ultimately the chronic will end up behaving strangely like a certain celebrity who I won't mention since her chronic phase was a distortion of her life before pot. Additionally, most of it was exaggerated by celebrity gossip columns and the paparazzi stalkers who are sometimes failures at being petty criminals. It would not even surprise me that there are bottom feeders in the world of celebrities who plan to profit from being insiders of celebrities, provided they know the vices of their intended "victim".
For a drug addiction is also a side effect of being a narcissist, who makes a drug of his choice a part of his lifestyle, a dangerous accessory of a lifestyle where everyone and almost everything else is but an accessory and basically a means to the end, a reflection of his life.
Once rehabilitated, the former drug addict still face his character disturbance known as narcissism. It will mean giving up former friends of that lifestyle in some cases, and in other cases, changing the dynamics of other friends.
Yet there is no known cure for drug addiction. Instead, the former addict comes to realize life is simpler and less chaotic sober, and many times more valuable than intoxication. Indeed, the hang-ups of sobriety keep us all safe and secure.
For addiction and abuse is not about the drugs at all. Rather it is about the person behind the cravings, a person who only sees the world filled with the accessories which make her feel safe and secure. It is a pity that in the midst of abuse, we forget how precious our inhibitions truly are.
20131108
Gateway Drug Myth (satire)
A few days ago, I noticed a couple with their child.
What brought them to my attention was the fact that the mother was drinking from a can of beer. This was after hearing their baby cry non-stop for about fifteen minutes on the bus.
Nobody dared challenge the couple lest harm befall the child.
Yet harm has already been done, because the baby was earnestly trying to attract the attention of its parents, both of whom displayed overt neglect of their child.
When I got off the bus, I was slightly upset. When I was about to report the intoxicated couple to Skytrain attendants, the Skytrain arrived.
Rather than do the right thing, I boarded the train.
At that moment, I failed a child who is being neglected by its parents due to their addiction issues.
My hope is that karma does not bite my ass when this child grows up.
Even so, I justify my inaction by stating that a worse fate for that child might be the alternative to neglect and later abuse by birth parents: being removed and placed in a foster family and the additional complexity of that outcome.
It does not matter if the child removed due to neglect in its birth family. That child will still face the risk of neglect and perhaps abuse in a foster home. Adoption is no better because the same risks in an adoptive family.
In fact, BC's Ministry of Children and Family Services (MoCFS) has consistently failed children, mainly because people behave differently in front of authority. They sometimes put on an act to look like a caring family when under scrutiny.
A case in point: a child was born to an alcoholic mother. MoCFS officials removed the child as "at risk" but made the mistake of placing the child in the care of the mother's brother, a man who was known in their community as a violent alcoholic.
Within months in the care of the brother's family, the child ended up beaten to death because, while drunk, he beat up the child because it desperately sought care and comfort by crying non-stop for hours.
It is also likely the child was placed in that family because they lied to Ministry officials in order to collect additional benefits to support their social drinking, which they may have claimed was under control.
In another case, MoCFS officials threatened a single mother with a child with removal of her child if she did not give up her recreational use of marijuana. The mother never neglected the child and family members could vouch for her caring behavior even when under the influence.
Yet Ministry officials considered marijuana to be more dangerous than alcohol, despite the previous scenario in which a dangerous alcoholic killed his niece.
In yet another case, a two year-old girl was released in care of an uncle, who hitchhiked all the way to BC from Saskatchewan and managed to convince MoCFS officials to given him airfare to return to Saskatchewan. Rather than buy air passage, the man spent it on recreational drugs, which he had been under the influence in the presence of social workers! Instead of being a proper caregiver, the uncle beat her and locked her away when he was out abusing drugs. He even mentally abused her by calling her an "evil child".
IMO the BC Ministry of Children and Family Services exercises legal form of child abduction based on its premise regarding illegal drugs and alcohol i.e. that marijuana smokers put their child at risk which is greater than the risk that chronic alcoholics pose to children under their care.
Furthermore, the Ministry abducts children based on information that parents are using drugs and/or alcohol reported to them without doing an assessment to determine that the parents are addicts. They also allow fail to do a background check on out-of-province relatives of children in their care.
Indeed, it is possible for a concerned busybody to call up the emergency hot-line and state falsely that the parents are chronic alcoholics or drug addicts, when in actual fact the parents use alcohol and/or marijuana recreationally but not in front of their children. Usually the concerned busybody may report false information due to malevolence towards the parents, sometimes because it helps their court case regarding heroin and/or methadone.
Additionally the RCMP are also complicit in the legal abduction of children by the Ministry, since they accompany Ministry officials to help remove child-at-risk.
IMO the BC Ministry of Children and Family Services operates a form of legalized child abduction and adoption service. It does so while promoting the illusion that the BC cares for at-risk children.
In fact the Ministry of Children and Family Services has shown that legalized child abduction has consistently placed children at greater risk because there is no way of closely scrutinizing foster and adoptive families without violation of privacy rights.
Also, the Ministry is unable to closely monitor certain social workers who recreationally use alcohol and/or cocaine with the aim to reduce the risk of errors in judgments made in cases where an official with a substance use issue is biased against families who recreationally use marijuana.
This is because of federal drug laws and the false assumption that recreational drug users are placing their children at risk.
IMO Ministry officials also carefully scrutinize everyone with kids who regularly drink socially, rather than just going after chronic alcoholics and drug addicts.
It is so simple to implement this policy. All a social worker has to do is closely monitor social drinking after hours and anonymously report the most chromic of alcoholics in a special whistle-blowing program that protect the rights of the whistle-blower.
Since research has discovered that food is more addictive than drugs, health officials should closely monitor obesity because food is the gateway drug to illicit drugs and alcohol.
Of course, we know food isn't a gateway drug.
I merely followed the same simplistic logic used by Ministry of Children and Family Services to subject parents to the same scrutiny the RCMP uses to ensure illegal drugs remain under close scrutiny due to drug laws that only lead to enormous profits for criminal gangs.
Legalizing drugs would solve this problem by causing the price of most illegal drugs to drop so low that most crime gangs would buy it for cheap to peddle in countries with strong drug laws at enormous profit. Thus, global drug legalization could save more lives than the current "war on drugs" ever has.
As for crime gangs who would turn from peddling drugs locally to selling it globally, that can be stopped by licensing drug use and limiting supply to the licensee. If the licensed user is known to be selling his drugs, selling it at a higher cost wouldn't be feasible since almost anyone could go to the government-approve drug dispensary for cheaper prices. It would be impossible to sell the drugs in Canada. In order for him to resell his drugs, the drug user would then have to buy a vendor's license and a business license. The RCMP would then have to monitor sellers of the drugs for selling drugs without a license.
IMO the reason why the RCMP believes recreational drugs should remain illegal (drugs are dangerous when abused) is actually a smoke screen for the true reason why such drugs remain illegal (drugs are more profitable when illegal and thus should be policed). In essence then, the powers that be wish recreational drugs to remain illegal because then taxpayers' money is best spent in policing the drug laws. The criminals win and the justice system wins.
Such drug policies look like they are made by narcissists to protect their interest in alcohol and tobacco.
Such policies also harm single mothers' mental well-being via the gateway drug myth that determines the use of emotional blackmail to pressure said mothers simply because they recreationally use marijuana while not also carefully scrutinizing mothers who drink recreationally or are former heroin addicts on methadone. That is a potential human rights issue.
IMO the propaganda against marijuana was designed to dupe the people of Canada into believing that marijuana is a dangerous drug simply because it looks like the RCMP policing marijuana is a good use of taxpayers' dollars.
Yet billions of dollars of profit are made annually by crime gangs due to drug laws, profit that would dry up when our drug laws are abolished and returned to being the health issue of addiction.
Once that is done, we can spend taxpayers' money wisely through harm reduction and addiction research.
For the cheapest way to solve addiction , research the most addictive substance in the world: high fat, high sugar food.
What brought them to my attention was the fact that the mother was drinking from a can of beer. This was after hearing their baby cry non-stop for about fifteen minutes on the bus.
Nobody dared challenge the couple lest harm befall the child.
Yet harm has already been done, because the baby was earnestly trying to attract the attention of its parents, both of whom displayed overt neglect of their child.
When I got off the bus, I was slightly upset. When I was about to report the intoxicated couple to Skytrain attendants, the Skytrain arrived.
Rather than do the right thing, I boarded the train.
At that moment, I failed a child who is being neglected by its parents due to their addiction issues.
My hope is that karma does not bite my ass when this child grows up.
Even so, I justify my inaction by stating that a worse fate for that child might be the alternative to neglect and later abuse by birth parents: being removed and placed in a foster family and the additional complexity of that outcome.
It does not matter if the child removed due to neglect in its birth family. That child will still face the risk of neglect and perhaps abuse in a foster home. Adoption is no better because the same risks in an adoptive family.
In fact, BC's Ministry of Children and Family Services (MoCFS) has consistently failed children, mainly because people behave differently in front of authority. They sometimes put on an act to look like a caring family when under scrutiny.
A case in point: a child was born to an alcoholic mother. MoCFS officials removed the child as "at risk" but made the mistake of placing the child in the care of the mother's brother, a man who was known in their community as a violent alcoholic.
Within months in the care of the brother's family, the child ended up beaten to death because, while drunk, he beat up the child because it desperately sought care and comfort by crying non-stop for hours.
It is also likely the child was placed in that family because they lied to Ministry officials in order to collect additional benefits to support their social drinking, which they may have claimed was under control.
In another case, MoCFS officials threatened a single mother with a child with removal of her child if she did not give up her recreational use of marijuana. The mother never neglected the child and family members could vouch for her caring behavior even when under the influence.
Yet Ministry officials considered marijuana to be more dangerous than alcohol, despite the previous scenario in which a dangerous alcoholic killed his niece.
In yet another case, a two year-old girl was released in care of an uncle, who hitchhiked all the way to BC from Saskatchewan and managed to convince MoCFS officials to given him airfare to return to Saskatchewan. Rather than buy air passage, the man spent it on recreational drugs, which he had been under the influence in the presence of social workers! Instead of being a proper caregiver, the uncle beat her and locked her away when he was out abusing drugs. He even mentally abused her by calling her an "evil child".
IMO the BC Ministry of Children and Family Services exercises legal form of child abduction based on its premise regarding illegal drugs and alcohol i.e. that marijuana smokers put their child at risk which is greater than the risk that chronic alcoholics pose to children under their care.
Furthermore, the Ministry abducts children based on information that parents are using drugs and/or alcohol reported to them without doing an assessment to determine that the parents are addicts. They also allow fail to do a background check on out-of-province relatives of children in their care.
Indeed, it is possible for a concerned busybody to call up the emergency hot-line and state falsely that the parents are chronic alcoholics or drug addicts, when in actual fact the parents use alcohol and/or marijuana recreationally but not in front of their children. Usually the concerned busybody may report false information due to malevolence towards the parents, sometimes because it helps their court case regarding heroin and/or methadone.
Additionally the RCMP are also complicit in the legal abduction of children by the Ministry, since they accompany Ministry officials to help remove child-at-risk.
IMO the BC Ministry of Children and Family Services operates a form of legalized child abduction and adoption service. It does so while promoting the illusion that the BC cares for at-risk children.
In fact the Ministry of Children and Family Services has shown that legalized child abduction has consistently placed children at greater risk because there is no way of closely scrutinizing foster and adoptive families without violation of privacy rights.
Also, the Ministry is unable to closely monitor certain social workers who recreationally use alcohol and/or cocaine with the aim to reduce the risk of errors in judgments made in cases where an official with a substance use issue is biased against families who recreationally use marijuana.
This is because of federal drug laws and the false assumption that recreational drug users are placing their children at risk.
IMO Ministry officials also carefully scrutinize everyone with kids who regularly drink socially, rather than just going after chronic alcoholics and drug addicts.
It is so simple to implement this policy. All a social worker has to do is closely monitor social drinking after hours and anonymously report the most chromic of alcoholics in a special whistle-blowing program that protect the rights of the whistle-blower.
Since research has discovered that food is more addictive than drugs, health officials should closely monitor obesity because food is the gateway drug to illicit drugs and alcohol.
Of course, we know food isn't a gateway drug.
I merely followed the same simplistic logic used by Ministry of Children and Family Services to subject parents to the same scrutiny the RCMP uses to ensure illegal drugs remain under close scrutiny due to drug laws that only lead to enormous profits for criminal gangs.
Legalizing drugs would solve this problem by causing the price of most illegal drugs to drop so low that most crime gangs would buy it for cheap to peddle in countries with strong drug laws at enormous profit. Thus, global drug legalization could save more lives than the current "war on drugs" ever has.
As for crime gangs who would turn from peddling drugs locally to selling it globally, that can be stopped by licensing drug use and limiting supply to the licensee. If the licensed user is known to be selling his drugs, selling it at a higher cost wouldn't be feasible since almost anyone could go to the government-approve drug dispensary for cheaper prices. It would be impossible to sell the drugs in Canada. In order for him to resell his drugs, the drug user would then have to buy a vendor's license and a business license. The RCMP would then have to monitor sellers of the drugs for selling drugs without a license.
IMO the reason why the RCMP believes recreational drugs should remain illegal (drugs are dangerous when abused) is actually a smoke screen for the true reason why such drugs remain illegal (drugs are more profitable when illegal and thus should be policed). In essence then, the powers that be wish recreational drugs to remain illegal because then taxpayers' money is best spent in policing the drug laws. The criminals win and the justice system wins.
Such drug policies look like they are made by narcissists to protect their interest in alcohol and tobacco.
Such policies also harm single mothers' mental well-being via the gateway drug myth that determines the use of emotional blackmail to pressure said mothers simply because they recreationally use marijuana while not also carefully scrutinizing mothers who drink recreationally or are former heroin addicts on methadone. That is a potential human rights issue.
IMO the propaganda against marijuana was designed to dupe the people of Canada into believing that marijuana is a dangerous drug simply because it looks like the RCMP policing marijuana is a good use of taxpayers' dollars.
Yet billions of dollars of profit are made annually by crime gangs due to drug laws, profit that would dry up when our drug laws are abolished and returned to being the health issue of addiction.
Once that is done, we can spend taxpayers' money wisely through harm reduction and addiction research.
For the cheapest way to solve addiction , research the most addictive substance in the world: high fat, high sugar food.
20131029
Addiction and the Realm of Hungry Ghosts as Metaphor
In Buddhist cosmology, the realm of hungry ghosts is one of the Six Realms of Desire, being the second after the Hells.
These realms are metaphorical destinations where people are reborn due to the "evil" passions of strong emotions (anger, hate, fear, lust, jealousy, happiness, attachment, desire, etc).
What is so evil about strong emotions? That one may err and harm self or others or worse, both self and others. We have heard of crimes of passion where a murder is justified due to strong emotions clouding the judgment of the murderer who killed her lover due to jealousy.
Could even a child of two who hits his one-year old brother on the head with a hoe be due to evil passions? Yes, especially when the young lad runs like hell to the neighbor's property to escape justice at the hands of his mother!
Addiction is akin to being in the realm of hungry ghosts. In this way, reincarnation may be used as a metaphor to explain daily living.
Ever wonder why some practicing Buddhists could be so stoic? They have practiced meditation to calm the mind and maintain control over the biggest addiction of all: the passions.
For a Buddhist, passions (strong emotions) are evil in the sense that they almost lead one to the Hells when regularly experienced.
Such an addiction to emotions is an evil because a person could lose sight of the goal of Buddhism: to cease rebirth by putting out the flames of evil passion, and thus enter Nirvana.
How might one enter Nirvana? In this lifetime? Or, the next? Before answering the first question, the answer to the second and the third is, it depends on your past actions, your present actions and your future action. As well, the karma of your past may prevent Nirvana in this life. It might even prevent Nirvana in the next.
Below I give a rough guide to Samatha-vipassana meditation. Samatha is the meditation of stillness, while Vipassana may combine both sitting and walking meditation. If I have erred here, please correct me and I'll credit you and correct the text.
By sitting on his ass in contemplation of bliss, the Buddha practiced the meditation of stillness.
If this isn't your style, then the second method is useful as a guide
By walking while in silent meditation on a koan the Buddhist may find it possible to go beyond peace of mind.
Even though the strict Zen practitioners decry reading a sutra or even writing down one's thoughts, due to the risk of stirring up evil passion, the first meditation in stillness shows that even passions will dissipate when carefully observed.
What good then is the walking meditation?
It makes it possible to realize the meaning of this koan:
"What is your face before you were born?"
Answer: The face before I was born is not the face I was born with. For karma dictates that a practitioner may never know the face before being born. Yet he can be assured that it is not the face he was born with.
Nor will it be the face of my next birth, which brings us to a koan of my own: "What is your face after you die?" The answer is, "It's not the face I was born with nor the face before I was born."
Yet this is not reincarnation, but the transmigration of karma.
However, meditation when practiced with a true Buddha buddy beats sitting still alone.
Hungry Ghosts: http://taiyu.hubpages.com/hub/Hungry-Ghosts
These realms are metaphorical destinations where people are reborn due to the "evil" passions of strong emotions (anger, hate, fear, lust, jealousy, happiness, attachment, desire, etc).
What is so evil about strong emotions? That one may err and harm self or others or worse, both self and others. We have heard of crimes of passion where a murder is justified due to strong emotions clouding the judgment of the murderer who killed her lover due to jealousy.
Could even a child of two who hits his one-year old brother on the head with a hoe be due to evil passions? Yes, especially when the young lad runs like hell to the neighbor's property to escape justice at the hands of his mother!
Addiction is akin to being in the realm of hungry ghosts. In this way, reincarnation may be used as a metaphor to explain daily living.
Ever wonder why some practicing Buddhists could be so stoic? They have practiced meditation to calm the mind and maintain control over the biggest addiction of all: the passions.
For a Buddhist, passions (strong emotions) are evil in the sense that they almost lead one to the Hells when regularly experienced.
Such an addiction to emotions is an evil because a person could lose sight of the goal of Buddhism: to cease rebirth by putting out the flames of evil passion, and thus enter Nirvana.
How might one enter Nirvana? In this lifetime? Or, the next? Before answering the first question, the answer to the second and the third is, it depends on your past actions, your present actions and your future action. As well, the karma of your past may prevent Nirvana in this life. It might even prevent Nirvana in the next.
Below I give a rough guide to Samatha-vipassana meditation. Samatha is the meditation of stillness, while Vipassana may combine both sitting and walking meditation. If I have erred here, please correct me and I'll credit you and correct the text.
By sitting on his ass in contemplation of bliss, the Buddha practiced the meditation of stillness.
If this isn't your style, then the second method is useful as a guide
By walking while in silent meditation on a koan the Buddhist may find it possible to go beyond peace of mind.
Even though the strict Zen practitioners decry reading a sutra or even writing down one's thoughts, due to the risk of stirring up evil passion, the first meditation in stillness shows that even passions will dissipate when carefully observed.
What good then is the walking meditation?
It makes it possible to realize the meaning of this koan:
"What is your face before you were born?"
Answer: The face before I was born is not the face I was born with. For karma dictates that a practitioner may never know the face before being born. Yet he can be assured that it is not the face he was born with.
Nor will it be the face of my next birth, which brings us to a koan of my own: "What is your face after you die?" The answer is, "It's not the face I was born with nor the face before I was born."
Yet this is not reincarnation, but the transmigration of karma.
However, meditation when practiced with a true Buddha buddy beats sitting still alone.
Hungry Ghosts: http://taiyu.hubpages.com/hub/Hungry-Ghosts
20130120
Medication Through Meditation
Marxist-Leninists have critqued religion often saying "Religion is the opium of the people".
If religion is the opium of the people, then recreational drugs are just another addiction.
For religion may be addictive to people who desire control over others to make up for their inability to control their own destiny.
Indeed, addiction is a symptom of that inability.
Yet the irony is that among the New Left recreational drugs is a part of their culture.
For me it is easy to see that the problem here is not drugs, but the ego delusion associated with addiction based on the inability to control one's destiny.
If you are a social activist, then you may be directing your destiny in encounters with the State (potential arrest for burning a police car and smashing windows of a bank).
This creates the inability to control your destiny due to the police state mentality that results from confronting authority (exceedingly long times for the right of free assembly).
I find the solution to be simple: develop a rehabilitative strategy rather than relying on your drug crutch. For drug addiction is not a symptom of your hate for the State. Rather, it's an excuse for merely getting high. Were you doing it for noble purposes, I could understand.
For addiction is a dysfunctional way of "handling stress" called self-medication. I assure you that the best medicine is found through meditation, not getting drunk as a skunk.
YMMV
If religion is the opium of the people, then recreational drugs are just another addiction.
For religion may be addictive to people who desire control over others to make up for their inability to control their own destiny.
Indeed, addiction is a symptom of that inability.
Yet the irony is that among the New Left recreational drugs is a part of their culture.
For me it is easy to see that the problem here is not drugs, but the ego delusion associated with addiction based on the inability to control one's destiny.
If you are a social activist, then you may be directing your destiny in encounters with the State (potential arrest for burning a police car and smashing windows of a bank).
This creates the inability to control your destiny due to the police state mentality that results from confronting authority (exceedingly long times for the right of free assembly).
I find the solution to be simple: develop a rehabilitative strategy rather than relying on your drug crutch. For drug addiction is not a symptom of your hate for the State. Rather, it's an excuse for merely getting high. Were you doing it for noble purposes, I could understand.
For addiction is a dysfunctional way of "handling stress" called self-medication. I assure you that the best medicine is found through meditation, not getting drunk as a skunk.
YMMV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)