posted August 06, 2001 11:35 AM         

Ok, the guy's got an unusual angle on his art, but I'm good friends with an ex-heroin user. Took her ONE trip to get nailed, but good. After a few months of shoving needles into her arms, she ended up in the ER, nearly dead. Her recovery is a minute-to-minute struggle that will remain a struggle FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE.

That makes this less of an artistic expression and more of a sick experiment to fuck with people's lives. There should be a goddam War on HIM.

[edited to add]

I agree, the "war on drugs" is a complete absurdity, and I do not support it in any way, but I will say if there were some way to TRULY wipe out heroin and crack (the two most addictive and destructive nasties out there, IMHO), I'd support it. Of course, this will never happen - I just thought I should explain my position on the WOD a bit better. I'm against it. I'm also against heroin!

posted August 06, 2001 12:23 PM         

quote:

---

Methadone is more addictive...just so ya know...

---

posted August 06, 2001 02:08 PM            

Yea, I knew that.

posted August 06, 2001 06:00 PM            

Ugh.
Just.......ugh.

What the FUCK is wrong with people these days???
Not just the guy doing the "study", but the subjects too. No one on this Earth could ever convince me that a drug that seriously screws with your mental faculties could ever have a good use. I don't even like taking morphine or Demerol at the hosipital.

Some drugs are admittedly (and aguably, depending on who you talk to) worse than others.
I just think there's something wrong with people who have to depend on a chemical substance to feel good about themselves. Dangerous chemical substances at that.

The girl on heroin scared me the most. Why would anyone want to look like that and be what he described as "incredibly bored, uncreative, unemotional and numb"?

------------------
Night breeds its own sort of anticipation.

IP: Logged

posted August 06, 2001 06:48 PM         

quote:

---

Why would anyone want to look like that and be what he described as "incredibly bored, uncreative, unemotional and numb"?

---

Probably in order to be "bored, uncreative, unemotional and numb." Seriously, though, my layman's impression (as someone who's never tried heroin) of why people do heroin or other opiates is to achieve an unemotional and numb state.

I also take slight exception to phrases such as "drugs are bad" (made in the twin to this thread in www.crap). I think that's an oversimplifying blanket statement.

First of all, "society's" definition of which "drugs are bad," and therefore punishable by imprisonment, is arbitary at best, and capricious at worst. We are an incredibly self-medicating culture, from aspirin to midol to alcohol to coffee, and so on and so on. But the State has put itself in the position of saying, "all these chemicals are o.k., but these over here, are BAD BAD BAD! We know what's best for you. We will lock you up if you use these ones."

Second, I don't think drugs per se are good or bad in and of themselves. They simply are. Drug abuse is bad, but that doesn't endow the chemicals themselves with any moral qualities. Sulfuric acid sitting in a beaker is neither good nor bad. If it gets tossed in someone's face, that's bad. But it's not the "fault" of the sufluric acid in and of itself.

Ultimately, I think giving the State the right to determine what chemicals you are and are not allowed to take into your body is relegating control of your body to the State. I believe that a person's body "belongs" to him or herself, and it's his/her decision what they want to do with it, even if it is self-destructive. Beyond the myriad of practical considerations, that's why I'm pro-legalization, as I've said many times in the past.

posted August 06, 2001 08:16 PM         

quote:

---

We are an incredibly self-medicating culture, from aspirin to midol to alcohol to coffee, and so on and so on. But the State has put itself in the position of saying, "all these chemicals are o.k., but these over here, are BAD BAD BAD! --Roup

---

I completely agree that we're a very self-medicating race (I'm talking man since the beginning of time). But my "Bad. Bad. Bad." was a comment on this "artist's" dangerous project, not an indictment on drugs in and of themselves. Of course we all know that the problems arise not intrinsically from the drug, but from the way the drug is used (or abused).

Having said that, I'll also say that having seen personally what horrible, irreparable damage heroin does to a life (and not just the user's, mind you), I can't support ANYONE using it.

Yes, I think people should be able to choose what they want to do, to a point. Blowing up buildings should be illegal, and so should blowing up lives. Heroin does this. To EVERY user. If you doubt it, ask some heroin users (recovered or not), their friends, family, and children. You find me ONE benefit or positive life improvement that heroin abuse/addiction creates and I'll eat these words.

I don't necessarily think the government is responsible to (nor do I want them to) step in and make a ruling on everything we ingest into our bodies, but it will be a cold day in hell when I don't stop wishing there were no such thing as heroin.

posted August 06, 2001 08:34 PM            

It sounds like this guy wanted to fuck people up and take their picture because he thought it would be cool and would get him some publicity. It’s all a sort-of shock value thing masked by the excuse of “art” or a “moral outcry” against the horrendous war on drugs. It reeks of fake.

About the WOD, I find it quite appalling. As long as you’re responsible with what you do (i.e. don’t do anything that would closely endanger *my* life like driving while doing heroin), do whatever you want to do. It’s your life. Of course, I would think rather little of you if you chose to live life perpetually seeking a better high, never motivated to do anything else with your life. Nevertheless, I won’t take away your right to your body. Enter most of Roup’s statement here.

quote:

---

Ultimately, I think giving the State the right to determine what chemicals you are and are not allowed to take into your body is relegating control of your body to the State. I believe that a person's body "belongs" to him or herself, and it's his/her decision what they want to do with it, even if it is self-destructive.

---

Speaking of self-destruction: If rightists could, I wonder what punishment they would inflict on suicide victims for “irresponsibly mistreating themselves to the point of death.”

posted August 07, 2001 02:55 AM            

But even with a nurse there to monitor blood pressure, did he really have any idea what they would do if someone reacted badly? Because of the prescription drugs I take daily, I know that if I took speed or E I would be in ER very soon, and quite possibly wouldn't come back out. But that's because I've researched the drugs I have to take, and choose not to take further risks.

posted August 07, 2001 08:00 AM            

quote:

---

The girl on heroin scared me the most. Why would anyone want to look like that and be what he described as "incredibly bored, uncreative, unemotional and numb"?

---

Addictive and deadly as heroin use is, I can still kind of see the appeal. The other day I was in "existentialist mode", and found myself disgusted with my surroundings, and wishing I could "turn them off"--stop thinking, stop feeling, etc. Yeah, I'm betting I'm even more depressed than usual, and I should probably do something about it. But the point is, at that moment, if I'd happened to have a magic button I could press and make everything stop, I'd have pressed it without thinking twice, possibly without thinking once.

So I'm guessing those are the heroin users.

posted August 07, 2001 08:27 AM         

quote:

---

But the point is, at that moment, if I'd happened to have a magic button I could press and make everything stop, I'd have pressed it without thinking twice, possibly without thinking once.

So I'm guessing those are the heroin users. --SunAvatar

---

Bingo.

But please don't go there. PLEASE.

posted August 07, 2001 10:09 AM            

Also, in the book Girlfriend in a Coma, by Douglas Coupland, two characters OD on heroin and end up in the emergency room. When they get there, they get treated and as soon as they wake up, they start complaining about how the doctors had ruined a great high, even though to outside observers, they had nearly died.

So my point is that maybe drug users don't think about how they appear to others. They use the drugs to make them feel high inside. In that case, as horrifying as it is to make people take drugs so you can take pictures of them, maybe it's a good thing. Maybe some of these will make people who were considering taking things like heroin think about what they're actually doing to themselves outside of the high.

posted August 07, 2001 07:45 PM         

Photos of actual addicts while high might be good though, but perhaps it would fight for the wrong team?

Experimentally, I think I'd have included more of the halucinogenics, and more people on each, to see which of the affects are the drug and which are the person being weird of their own accord.
_ _ _ _ _
I think what bothers me right now is that as far as I can tell, the grounds for a drug being made illegal aren't just "it's potentially bad for you". Tylenol is potentially bad for you.

It seems to me that recreational = bad for all but the two big industries, one of which won't be killed and one of which we tried killing and theoretically learned our lesson.

I kinda wonder if most of the pressure to make all *other* recreational drugs illegal (*regardless* of how bad they are) is comming from the Alcohol and Tobacco industries.

Industry is what got pot outlawed to begin with. Mere morals rarely keep anything up or down on Capital Hill. So it must be about money.

If it wasn't, the moral pros and cons would be argued more realistically. The government already knows what happens when you outlaw people's chemical fun. We did that in the 20s.
_ _ _

I like what my Mom says about wars.. any war.

"You get what you count*."

If you count land aquired, you'll aquire land. If you count dead bodies, you'll get piles of bodies. (This being, from what she says, one of the major problems with the strategy and propaganda surrounding the Vietnam War.)

So, if you count kids under the age of 12 who *aren't* on drugs, you'll get drugless kids.

If you count drug addicts arrested, drug dealers killed, drug-dealer's property reposessed, drug bags confiscated, you'll get them. And you'll get things made to *look* like them, for the sake of the count.

And you'll get them *instead* of what you're *not* counting.

--Ember--

*If that doesn't sound significant, change "count" to "reward" or "pay people to aquire".

[Edited 'cause my brain got ahead of my hands.]

posted August 07, 2001 07:48 PM            

I have to say, mescaline and E are both extremely fun. I've never had a bad time on either of them... Of course, as I've said before many times, I've had horrible times on stuff I bought thinking that it was E but it ended up being something completely different. I was addicted to speed, intraveneous methamphetamines actually, and I must say it was never fun, just something I needed. I've DEFINITELY had some BAD times on acid, last time I did that was in '96. I had such a scary trip, I'll never touch that stuff again... I've also had one horrid shroom experience...

posted August 08, 2001 10:09 AM            

quote:

---

Experimentally, I think I'd have included more of the halucinogenics, and more people on each, to see which of the affects are the drug and which are the person being weird of their own accord.

---

Just sayin' yo. <--SpicyJ ripoff (I added the yo)

posted August 08, 2001 03:13 PM         

This is true, and frankly, I'm probably one of those people, having halucinated for natural reasons before, and not liking it much.

Which is why I probably wouldn't do such an experiment at all.

I mostly meant *if* I were to get involved in with such an experiment to begin with, I'd leave out the highly addictive, and explore the more psychologically affecting, less addictive substances.

I would make damned sure I had plenty of info for the people to read before hand, so they know what they're getting into, etc.

And of course a safe place to be, medical folks who know what they're doing, etc.

But it's got to be well informed volunteers no matter what you're using.

posted August 08, 2001 07:29 PM            

quote:

---

This is true, and frankly, I'm probably one of those people, having halucinated for natural reasons before, and not liking it much.

---

Having hallucinated before from high fevers, I can tell you that it is absolutely nothing like hallucinating from Acid. I can also tell you Acid is not like DXM, and DXM is not like Shrooms, and Shrooms are not like Mescaline... Erowid.com would also be able to tell you this...

posted August 09, 2001 03:43 PM         

It's one of the scariest things that ever happened to me.

Add in that I'm hypersensitive and I figure just about any drug would be as bad or worse than what my brain already does to me of it's own accord.

I've also been delirious with fever and it wasn't at all the same as the sleepwalking. I kinda dread being exposed to halucinogens, myself, but I seem to be in the minority, given the collective attitude of my friends.

posted August 09, 2001 05:02 PM         

Anyways, my point in bringing this up (and giving that explanation) is to say that in my personal experience, and from talking to others, is that the effect "hallucinogens" isn't an experience of seeing imaginary creatures that aren't there, or thinking that a flower is talking to you or stuff like that.

I saw only things that were really there, and didn't hold any coversations with a lamp. It's just that everything looks different. It's really hard to explain. It's like you're experiencing things through some sort of filter, or everything has some sort of "twist" that makes you experience reality in a strange way.

The weird thing is, that even though you can't explain it well to someone who hasn't taken acid, most people who have taken it seem to share about the same experiences. You can talk about one of the aspects of a "trip" and odds are they'll understand what you mean. And the visuals are similar. Example: my college roommate and I were tripping. There was also a keg around and we were drinking some beer as well. (NB: in general, this is not a good idea.) He went into the bathroom and poured some of the suds off the top of his beer into the sink. The bubbles in the foam expandind and exploding looked really incredible - once again in a way you can't explain. But he called me into the bathroom to take a look at it, and I "saw" the same thing he did. Ended up in the bathroom watching beer foam in the sink for like half an hour.

posted August 10, 2001 06:49 AM            

Ohh and I agree with Roup, I have only seen something that wasn't there once while one acid, and we have yet to decide if he was real or not. The only exception to this is DXM, when you are on DXM you feel like you are something different...like I once thought for about 5-10 minutes that I was a cat...pet thought he became a couch, and an erector set once... It's really not unusual to think you are a plant of some sort on DXM. My last trip on shrooms was weird, the one light in our bedroom was LOUD so loud you couldn't hear yourself think... finally we figured out that the light was loud and turned on a different light...everything became so much happier. Somewhere (probably archived) I posted during that trip.

posted August 10, 2001 04:52 PM            

or

A response to Roup's "I can put whatever fool chemical I like into my body" argument.

Laws are there to protect people. It's that simple. They are there to protect all of people's rights, not just those people who are clued up, not just those people who choose to go off the rails, but the people who can be pushed off the rails.

Heroin is the number one cause of prostitution in the UK, and also I would imagine, in the US. The theory and practice works like this:
Pimp/Dealer: Have some heroin free.
Girl: OK (gets high, goes back, gets addicted etc)
Pimp: You have to pay for this stuff now
Girl: I don't have any money
Pimp: I have a solution to that problem...

Theoretically, the laws are there to protect the naive or the stupid from becoming prostitutes. Of course, in reality it is much easier to arrest the prostitutes than the pimps, because their profession relies on them being very visible and openly dispaying what they do for a living. Thus, the police arrest prostitutes, tackling the symptom and not the cause.

If people are going to do drugs, they are going to do them. Generally speaking, there is a degree of "blind eyeness," at least in the UK. The police tell people about the dangers, do the occasional spot raid to keep clubbers on their toes, try and get at the dealers, but it is so easy to get hold of class C drugs like pot that it's obvious they aren't exactly pulling out all the stops. However, if someone abuses someone else, by dealing or by getting someone addicted to further their own ends, then there is a legal framework in place to prosecute that person.

It's a similar situation to the "age of consent." Very rarely are charges pressed if two 15 year olds are caught engaging in a bit of nookie. The 16-year barrier is there to stop a 34 year old preying on young girls. Someone decided that 17 was the age at which they stopped being naive, so the law was passed.

Yes, these laws can catch people out who are not doing anything "wrong." But you have to be able to target those who are genuinely doing wrong, within the framework of the law. I think, in general, we have it just about alright here in Europe. I'd like to see some changes, but when I hear the US Right's vitriolic "all people who smoke dope should be executed" ranting, I realise how lucky we are to still have a precious modicum of common sense distrubuted around whitehall.

And finally, in the interests of laws which make sense, we should either legalise cannabis or decriminalise tobacco and alcohol. Either way, the playing field will be even.

So, in summary:
WOD=stupid.
Laws prohibiting drugs = only thing we can do to prevent much more serious cases of abuse.
Arbitrary distinction between legal and illegal drugs = all down to money.

posted August 10, 2001 06:39 PM         

To this, I respond that it's the illegalization of the substance in the first place that makes such "control" possible! As a counterexample, I cite nicotine. From all accounts I've read, nicotine is about the most physically addictive drug around, more so than heroin even. (I'll dig around for more support on that if challenged) So why don't pimps get young women hooked on cigarettes and then put them on the street to meet their tobacco habit? Because of the economics of it. You can kill yourself with tobacco much cheaper than you can kill yourself with heroin. You don't need to turn to hooking to buy your daily pack of Marlboros.

So why is heroin so expensive? Because of criminalization! As I've posted before, the price of the raw opium to the farmer runs about $90 US to the kilo. Through a series of markups, this then reaches a heroin retail price in the US market of $290,000 a kilo. Quite a margin. Again as I've posted in the past, I believe the "price elasticity" of heroin is extremely inelastic. I don't think a reduction in the price of heroin would lead to a large increase in consumption, but addicts will do anything to continue using no matter how much it costs. For my third repeat point, I recall alcohol Prohibition in the United States - suddenly there's enough money in booze that Al Capone and his gangsters are machine-gunning each other in the streets of Chicago over it. How was the problem solved? Not by upping the War on Alcohol but by ending the prohibition. Poof, problem gone. I contend that if heroin were not criminalized, pimps would not be able to use it to control prostitutes. It's the prohibition itself, not the drug, that leads to the situation.

As for your "laws are there to protect people" point, I'd like to add an important modifier. I think laws should be to protect people from other people. I don't feel it's the legitimate place of the State to protect us from ourselves. If it were, in addition to alcohol and tobacco, we should add bacon double cheeseburgers, Coca Cola, and Peeps to the list of banned substances.

posted August 11, 2001 10:26 AM            

And, as I pointed out, the US "War On Drugs" is Christian-Right kneejerkism that will undoubtedly do more harm than good to those who actually suffer from drug use. However, the European view is much more balanced, and people are predicting the decriminalisation of cannabis, an important step, because people don't use cannabis to control people, is just around the corner in the UK. In most European countries, its already there.

Your summation of my post was sort of correct, but I would say that my point was more "at the moment, drug laws provide a legal framework to prosecute those who abuse others with drugs. We need to modify our drug laws to protect people even more from abuse, and recognise that addicts, and even street dealers, are more victims driven to desperation than villains."

posted August 11, 2001 12:03 PM            

It IS legal to be a prostitute - it's just not legal to solicit under certain circumstances or pander.

(edited because I meant CLASSIFIED ads... the personals aren't exactly prostitution.^_^)

posted August 11, 2001 12:12 PM            

I believe it is also illegal to coerce or encourage anyone to become a prostitute, and to allow prostitution to take place wthin your premises.

------------------
You have a 4-corner head - with only a 1-corner face. You are 1/4 of the person you were taught to think you are.

TimeCube

posted August 11, 2001 12:35 PM            

quote:

---

Ahhhh, yes, but our society doesn't mind people being drug addicts as long as they aren't actually getting high off of it.

---

Sig!

------------------
“Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.” - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc., 1989

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but
not simpler.” - Albert Einstein