venomai

Most of these are guesses, and most of them I would play again in a heartbeat (and still do play). Super Nintendo - Zelda: A Link To The Past Nintendo 64 - Mario Kart 64, Zelda: Ocarina of Time Xbox - Halo, Amped Gameboy - Super Mario Land Sega Handheld - Mortal Kombat, Captain America and The Avengers Computer - Hexen, Shadow Warrior, Day of the Tentacle, King's Quest, Myst EDIT: King's Quest V (1990), F-Zero and Super Mario World (1991) were some of my first games.

I agree with IGoddessI. There's no need to continue this argument of meat and survival. Apologies to the OP.

I'm not a vegetarian and I'm not suggesting humans are 'natural herbivores'. Read my posts. We continue to include meat in our diets not for survival, but for luxury.

You've lost all sense of your earlier argument: "We [eat meat] for survival." Simply put: no, we do not. We eat meat because we enjoy it, and because it is abundant in our culture. We butcher thousands of animals every day because it creates a more luxurious lifestyle for us -- not because we do it for survival. Treatment which results in unnecessary damage or injury, as stated by law. Laws against bestiality, on the other hand, are backed by little more than religious ideals, moral panic and widespread ignorance.

When is consent required, by law?

I take it you misread my post. "It's more convenient than ever to be vegetarian" means that it is more convenient to be a vegetarian now than it ever was in the past. This is primarily because we have such a wide variety of foods available to us (i.e. supermarkets, restaurants), but also because vegetarian alternatives are very prevalent. Neither diet is necessary for survival in this day and age, regardless of whether they are inconvenient. Zierro, can you actually form a rebuttal without misrepresenting my argument? I'll be explicitly clear: "In no case do we require consent from animals; thus the argument of whether an animal can 'consent to sex' is irrelevant." This doesn't mean we can "do anything we want to them" -- there exist laws against animal abuse.

It doesn't matter that we don't have an animal's consent. We kill and eat them, we skin them, we use their tusks, we brand them, we debeak them, etc all without their consent.

What? It's more convenient than ever to be vegetarian. Just because you have a "hard" time avoiding meat doesn't mean its necessary "for your survival." :lol: Point in case is: A high meat diet is absolutely not necessary for survival.

We do it for survival though. This isn't to say I disagree with your main point - merely just that particular example. In fact I don't see how anything that you have no choice over can be considered "wrong". Ever heard of vegetarians? Initially, when food was scarce, we did eat meat for survival. However, in this day and age, high meat diets are unnecessary and destructive.

Some committed suicide, but the vast majority did not. There's no need to suppress your feelings -- you just need to learn how to keep them from your peers. It's a sad state of society where we can't all be open about our sexual preferences, but at least it's an improvement from the violent 'queer bashings' that were prevalent not too long ago. We brutally butcher thousands of animals every day without their consent. There's really no argument against zoos. Hopefully the rest of society will come to realize this in time.

You don't want to be persecuted, but you call people also with different urges sickos? Sorry kiddo, you've lost me. It seems more like society is branding these people as "sickos." I'm not sure what the last few posters are on about. Zoosexuality is not a few stray "urges" that can be "controlled" by mere willpower. Like homosexuailty or heterosexuality, it is a sexual orientation. You don't have to be straight to develop a meaningful relationship with family and friends. :thumbup: Keep your head up and don't let your sexual preferences get in the way -- it's none of their business, really. It will take some time to adjust, but there's no use in killing yourself or damaging your family/social life about it. Many have lived with zoosexuality, and much worse.

What's not to like about Illmatic/The Lost Tapes? Nas' early work has shaped modern rap.

I tend to make a distinction between a drug's effects on the body/mind and the potential consequences surrounding the acquisition and use of a drug in a given social setting. The latter includes needle sharing, repeated use leading to addiction, the manner in which one obtains the funds for using the drug, consuming an unknown dose, closer relation to organized criminals, etc. However, these are issues that can be minimized, if not entirely removed, by more sensible drug policies and improved education. In this sense, although "the effects of heroin" generally will not create a significant risk, consuming, say, an unknown dose of heroin with a shared needle after having purchased it from a criminal organization certainly does create a number of risks. As you point out, risks can also arise when one who has developed an addiction cannot afford the excessively high prices of street heroin by any means other than underground loans/crime. These issues, of course, are a product of the "War on Drugs" and, more importantly, only seem to appear in a minority of users. Along with what's said above, also note that the withdrawal symptoms for a number of legal drugs, including alcohol and even tobacco, can be pretty horrifying. Often, the affordable prices and controlled/regulated distribution of the drug helps to diminish the desire for addicts to do "damn near anything" to feed their dependence. I would argue that addiction is not necessarily an "effect of heroin use" much in the same way that addiction is not necessarily an "effect of alcohol use." (Imagine if alcohol dependence was an effect of getting drunk on Fridays!) Rather, it is an effect of repeated intake of the drug and/or psychological attraction to the effects of the drug.

Heroin has a sedating effect, weakening the muscles and putting the individual into a drowsy state. Its effects rarely put others at serious risk. The emotional disturbances are a result of culture-dependent social stigmas, rather than the effects of heroin. The same emotional disturbance can be seen among friends and family of cigarette smokers, zoophiles, prostitutes, etc. in the West. [sorry for the nitpick, but I strongly agree with your earlier sentiment: honest education about drugs and their effects is essential.]

I smoke shisha occasionally, and cigars on the odd night out. The only tobacco cigarettes I've tried are those that I've rolled myself. I have no interest in smoking cigarettes for their effects, but I do appreciate the image and social environment it creates. Smoking looks pretty damn classy.

Death from morphine/heroin use, wild mushroom hunting and even something as simple as crossing the street is rare. However, when it does occur, it's often the result of the individual being careless (e.g. not looking both ways when crossing the street). None of these situations are up to "random chance" -- the individual always has the ability to minimize, if not entirely remove, the risk of injury. If a user is to engage in reckless mushroom hunting or heroin use with no prior experience/education, and/or no knowledge of what they are consuming, it is indeed something that should be discouraged (albeit not necessarily prohibited). The prohibition and "War on Drugs" are failing to remove heroin use from society. Instead, they are removing the ability for users to fully afford and understand their heroin use. These policies have removed proper education, affordable prices, regulated doses, clean needles, etc. and, as a result, have created many of the risks that exist today with heroin use. And so too is morphine... I agree that compromises should be made on both sides, but there is a problem with our society when we turn dysfunctional addicts into (a) criminals that are despised and locked behind bars rather than helped, and (B) a false representation of all heroin users.

No doubt people are misinformed about marijuana, but rarely to the point that they place it alongside cocaine and heroin. And it is not necessarily due to its legal state; the more likely influence over this ignorance are the common myths, constant media hype and lack of proper education. Unless I'm mistaken, you are claiming that "cases where no one gets hurt" are "exceptions to the rule" in regard to heroin use. However, this is not necessarily true, as the vast majority of heroin users do not develop an addiction, do not overdose and die, etc. I see no hostility here. The relavent point here is that, while we do not allow drunk driving, we do (socially and legally) allow the consumption of alcohol (and even drunkenness) given that it does not put others at risk. I'm not suggesting that drunk driving -- or intoxication of any sort that puts others at serious risk -- should be socially or legally accepted. However, as I've pointed out, the mere use of heroin/cocaine does not always put others or the individual at risk, and therefore we should not be viewing all cases of heroin/cocaine use as if it were a case of drunk driving. (On the other hand, drunk driving, as it significantly impairs the individual's ability to drive, does put the individual and others at a significant risk.) It's not; my apologies if it comes off like I'm suggesting nicotine is "more addicting" than heroin. I included tobacco in the list of dependency estimates as a reference point, i.e. as a drug that is commonly perceived as extremely addicting. I have no interest in debating whether any one addicting drug is "more addicting" than another addicting drug (be it alcohol, nicotine, heroin or cocaine). I see them all as "addicting drugs."

As it stands, very few people place marijuana in the same vein as those "drugs that are very harmful" (assuming you are referring to cocaine, heroin, etc). Are you reading any of my posts? Research suggests that dysfunctional addicts and fatal overdoses are exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of users do not develop an addiction, do not develop significant health or social problems and do not overdose and die as a result of their heroin/cocaine use. If an individual is drunk in public and poses a risk to himself or others, whether or not he is behind the wheel of a car, then the appropriate action should be taken to ensure everyone's safety. Prohibiting alcohol in its entirety, however, is rarely the appropriate action to such a problem. However, as I've said, comparing the lethality of an illegally produced street drug to a legally produced tobacco cigarette is a poor analogy, regardless of which methods are most common.

Heroin has the same medical benefits as morphine (as the effects are the same) but it is more potent and generally faster-acting (hence its preference among addicts). What is the difference between heroin and morphine? Unfortunately, this is the current standard. However, in recent years, these trends have been changing. As education improves, more people are beginning to view certain legal drugs (i.e. tobacco) as "bad" and certain illegal drugs (i.e. marijuana) as "okay." Read the report I cited about controlled heroin users; it describes how these sustained users do not allow the drug use to interfere with their social lives, work, family, etc. In all respects, they appear to be using it in a "responsible manner." Or, for some lighter and less academic reading on the subject... The surprising truth about heroin and addiction In 1992 The New York Times carried a front-page story about a successful businessman who happened to be a regular heroin user. It began: "He is an executive in a company in New York, lives in a condo on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, drives an expensive car, plays tennis in the Hamptons and vacations with his wife in Europe and the Caribbean. But unknown to office colleagues, friends, and most of his family, the man is also a longtime heroin user. He says he finds heroin relaxing and pleasurable and has seen no reason to stop using it until the woman he recently married insisted that he do so. 'The drug is an enhancement of my life,' he said. 'I see it as similar to a guy coming home and having a drink of alcohol. Only alcohol has never done it for me.'" ... A single, controlled dose of heroin (or morphine, for that matter), administered safely, will not produce dependence or any significant health problems. (Otherwise, neither heroin nor morphine would be used as a medicine.) In any case, heroin (an illicit street drug) is not analogous to a tobacco cigarette (a legally produced delivery device for nicotine). A better analogy would be a heroin cigarette compared to a tobacco cigarette, both of which were produced and regulated legally. In such a case, smoking either cigarette once would not be at all lethal, harmful or addicting. Interestingly, in regard to lethality alone, nicotine is a more toxic drug than heroin. In humans, the LD50 of nicotine is ~0.5-1.0 mg/kg[1], whereas the LD50 of heroin is ~1.0-5.0 mg/kg[2].

This is a horrible standard, and it should be stamped out. How "hard" or dangerous a drug is, and particularly whether or not its use should be discouraged, should be seen as completely independent from its legal status. Heroin and morphine, for example, are practically identical in their chemical makeup, effects and potential risks. However, to suggest that morphine use is "okay" just because it is legal -- and, likewise, that heroin use is "bad" just because it is illegal -- would be ludicrous. These are both "hard" and potentially dangerous/addicting drugs, regardless of whether we class them as licit or illicit, and neither one should be discouraged any more than the other. Keep in mind; alcohol and nicotine are both "hard drugs" in the sense that they are potentially dangerous and addicting. Hundreds of thousands more people have died from and/or developed an addiction from (ab)using these two legal commodities. Western culture needs to stop classifying drugs as "okay" or "bad" to use, and start considering the manner in which they're being used as "okay" or "bad." Although it may come as a surprise, the vast majority of cocaine and heroin users are not dysfunctional addicts. In fact, a number of them continue to use it, sometimes for years, without developing an addiction and/or without allowing the drug to interfere with their social life, career, etc. Hunt and Chambers (1976) note that "Of all active heroin users, a large majority are not addicts: they are not physically or socially dysfunctional; they are not daily users and they do not seem to require treatment ..." [1] The 1994 National Comorbidity Survey estimates suggest that about 17% of cocaine users, 23% of heroin users and 32% of tobacco users had become drug dependent. [2] A 2005 report, Occasional and controlled heroin use: Not a problem? presents a very interesting insight into "controlled" heroin users, concluding with: "This study has focused on a largely hidden population of non-dependent and controlled dependent heroin users who saw their use to be relatively problem-free. Our findings suggest that sustained heroin use does not inevitably lead to dependency, and that dependency will not always cause users significant problems particularly involvement in crime and personal degeneration. We have demonstrated that, for some people, using heroin does not strip them of the ability to make conscious, rational and autonomous decisions about their drug use. The descriptions of heroin use presented here contradict the stereotypes that are to be found in the medias treatment of the topic and political statements about it. They almost certainly conflict with popular beliefs about the drug."

Apologies, I should have clarified. This is true for almost any currently researched claim. In science, something is proven only to a high degree of certainty. An entire body of independent research has investigated this issue and has determined with a high degree of certainty that cell phones do not cause brain cancer in humans. The WHO and FDA are very clear in their wordings, and cell phone companies are correct in asserting that their product has not shown to cause brain cancer in humans. There is no "deception" of the general public. The vast majority of preservatives legally defined as acceptable for use in food/drug have been tested thoroughly. Food safety is taken very seriously in North America. Regardless, an additive's addictive qualities would become apparent almost immediately. Entire populations that are physically dependent on a burger would not go unnoticed by health professionals. I'm beginning to wonder whether you understand addiction at all... As I've said a number of times now: if burgers are being laced with addictive substances, there are much more pressing matters at hand than the worry that marijuana (a recreational drug) may also be laced with addictive substances. These claims are absolutely laughable...

Good post, Necro. All good artists. :thumbup: If you haven't already heard them, I'd highly recommend CYNE, J-Live, Flying Lotus, Blu and Dr. Octagon.

The first source has no need to be updated. It is a discussion of events that took place well in the past. The article immediately proceeds to note that "Three recent epidemiological studies found no convincing evidence of increase in risk of cancer or any other disease with use of mobile phones." The entire article couldn't be more clear... Simply because you underline words like "unclear" and point out a single contradicting study doesn't mean its conclusions are vague or unsupported. You seem to have misunderstood. Neither the FDA or WHO are suggesting that it's "proven" that cell phones do not cause health problems. I agree that the FDA website can do with a re-write and some citations, but these are flaws on the part of the FDA (more specifically, their website). It's completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. I completely agree. Full legalization, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, would probably lead to the sale of modified weed. Companies would use additives and specific production techniques to make the weed more potent, less harsh, give it more taste, etc. We already see this happening with fruits, vegetables, burgers, coffee, and most other foods/drugs that you can think of. However, most of these companies are careful not to use addicting/dangerous additives for two primary reasons: a) The public would inevitably find out, and intense public backlash would ensue, followed by hostility toward the product (if not the entire corporation) and a huge drop in profits. B) The company would likely receive legal backlash, e.g. from agencies such as the FDA or, in Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

"While we are currently doing studies, there is no evidence that "Chemical-X" causes "[insert hazard]." Those same words are repeated hundreds of times when lobbying. The FDA buys into this crap; have you seen what's been happening with cigarettes, cellphones, and WiFi? The FDA has argued for decades that cigarettes are harmful and addicting. In the 90s, they investigated a number of tobacco companies and found manipulation of nicotine content, which prompted them to tighten regulations on the sale and advertisement of tobacco[1]. Which claims, exactly, are the FDA buying into? As for cell phones and WiFi, are you referring to the concern over radiation? The FDA's conclusions -- that cell phones have not shown to cause significant health problems[2] -- is consistent with mainstream scientific consensus[3][4]. The hundreds of independent studies and their conclusions is by no means "crap" fed to the FDA by malicious cell phone companies. Even if your argument were to hold weight, how is it at all relevant? This is a flaw in the United States' Food & Drug Administration, not an issue of marijuana legalization. If the FDA is truly as flawed as you imply, then there would be an immediate need for concern over common and currently regulated foods and drugs. edit: I saw it. It was alright, but nothing to write home about.

In regards to regulated food/drug in the United States, "dangerous" and "addictive" are words defined by the FDA. I don't see why you think this problem applies solely to marijuana. If food/drug industries could get away with using nicotine and other addicting substances as an additive, they wouldn't wait for marijuana to be legalized. :lol: