Or smokes a lot of pot

Post #332,622 by crazy 9/15/10 7:33:32 PM Reply	Or smokes a lot of pot http://www.reuniting.info/node/331
Post #332,643 by mhuber 9/16/10 4:23:29 AM Reply	No, moralizing is more direct than that The thing the moralizer does is exactly the thing denounced, not something with similar neuro-chemical results. But there is always a twist that makes even the most open-minded of us say "no, that's just wrong". So in this case, we can pretty much guarantee that there is major self-abuse (in a normal person it would just be masturbation, here it is self-abuse) going on, but somehow there are also children and/or farm animals involved. And it will become public eventually. While there are probably illicit chemicals involved, pot ain't one of them. Pot is far too wholesome. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #332,717 by crazy 9/17/10 5:02:26 PM Reply	Just a thought But you just triggered a peeve of mine. General attitude on pot is that it is harmless (at least on the mostly rational side). It is not. Most pro-pot people harp on the excess accusations of the other side, while ignoring a few real dangers. And these dangers can be addressed and mitigated (at least the testosterone->estriol problem). But not if people refuse to even talk about it.
Post #332,732 by mhuber 9/18/10 12:22:23 AM Reply	Not saying there are no contraindications But pot is just not part of the moralistic syndrome. Abused pharmaceuticals, coke, meth, that kind of thing is. Sort of like the way a lot of candy is marked "fat free" these days. Pot is probably bad for you, but not in ways that satisfy the moralist's need for self-destruction. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #332,740 by crazy 9/18/10 7:11:22 AM 9/18/10 7:13:39 AM Reply	And now you shift to the other silly viewpoint "But pot is just not part of the moralistic syndrome." And what the heck does that mean? "Abused pharmaceuticals, coke, meth, that kind of thing is." Ahh, God/nature didn't create it therefor is is "safe"? "Pot is probably bad for you, but not in ways that satisfy the moralist's need for self-destruction." Smoking pot is like having a mild sexual experience without the dopamine rush. A bit like masturbation. Jumps straight to the post-sex relaxation happiness though. So really, it is the perfect drug for a highly sexually charged person who does not have the ability to find a mate. All those young doper guys who are unable to talk to women and aren't getting laid? They don't need to. Pot removed the dopamine sexual edge, adds in motivation sapping sexually suppressing (for males) prolactin, and tells then to shut up and sit down and listen to the music. Girls, on the other hand, go into an aggressive horny mode. Remember those posters from the 40s about warning young adults not to smoke weed or they will turn into sexual monsters? They weren't kidding, it really does (at least compared to the mores of the times), they simply didn't have any idea of the true reasons. In the case of women, it can be very self-destructive. And aggression triggering. In the case of men, it triggers feminization. While the immediate effect of prolactin (the result of smoking pot from you brain's perspective) is pleasurable, long term exposure is pretty shitty from a side effect perspective. Passionflower may help guys as an aromatase inhibitor, but there is no guarantee, and there may be long term side effects from any AI drugs. I'd like to know the numbers as compared to natural prolactin released during orgasm. The more times a guy has sex, the more prolactin is released as well. Daily sex has to release more prolactin than smoking pot. Multi-orgasmic sex triggers a high prolactin state that last for 5-10 days. The guy is essentially stoned, all the time, but the focus is on the source of the prolactin, ie: the woman. This is known as being "in love". Moral issues? A few more than you were thinking about. Edited by crazy Sept. 18, 2010, 07:13:39 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #332,776 by mhuber 9/19/10 2:28:44 AM Reply	I'm talking about the pathology of moralism Not to be confused with morality. When was the last time we caught a Limbaugh or Jim Baker smoking pot? Moralism, I think, is a pathology. A syndrome at the very least. You get some guy up there purifying the nation, denouncing the evils of XYZ (at least one of which is homosexuality). I'm not talking about an activist seriously tackling a real issue, I'm talking about somebody out to purify the land, to rid the world of evil, to punish the impure.You know, for a fact, that certain things are going to be discovered eventually. Sexual deviancy that includes the sexuality being denounced plus children and/or subordinates and maybe animals. Misappropriation of resources - embezzlement. And drug abuse. The drug involved will not be pot. Whatever else pot does or doesn't do to you, it is not part of the moralistic syndrome. It may lead you to immoral acts, it may be immoral to smoke it. I don't know, and wolf has been cried so often and so loudly that if somebody says you can get burned touching the lit end of a joint it makes sense to question the research behind the statement. But when the preacher has to apologize to his flock for doing most of the things he spoke so harshly against, smoking pot is not going to be in the list of things he got caught doing, even if it is one of the things that he denounced. The moralist is not a highly sexually charged person who can't find a mate. A successful moralist has plenty of willing groupies - who will be entirely frustrated. I'd be willing to bet actual money that Glen Beck is not smoking weed. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #332,779 by crazy 9/19/10 7:42:50 AM Reply	Ok, different things, yes But I've experienced the occasional crazy religious moralistic person. And while I accept they are far more likely to be doing something they are screaming about, I don't have your level of certainty at the individual level. But yeah, they are usually crazy dangerous bastards.

Welcome to IWETHEY!