Printable View
Ya let's ban food so people wouldn't have to steal to use it. They aren't harmless mia muca, and proper doses and places won't prevent people from forking themselves up. Alcoholics get their proper doses, and they are such normal healthy people aren't they. I don't know what meth is, but I suspect you are talking of cocaine boiled in ammonia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Meth is a substance that is cooked up using ephrine (SP) (easily found in most over the counter diet pills, and breathing aids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
THey cook it up using substances that are extremely toxic such as red phrospous and kerosine. (And other caustic substances are sometimes used.)
BP,
Drugs are dangerous because of what is in the drugs, not just because of impurities. The drugs themselves are destructive.
Also, it has little to do wtih morality. I am far more concerned about the destructive capabilities of hard narcotics.
You know who will be most affected by this? Suburban middle class kids. Half of our population are secular progressives who just thrive on experimentation and bucking tradition. All kids think they are smarter than their parents, so did I. These kids are gonna suffer. And then the Chicanos will reclaim aztlan.
sad, well mabey some of the mexicans will go back over the border and get so high they forget to return:dizzy2: .
but really this is just gonna cause a bunch o sh** with retarted teenagers who will find it a lot cheaper to buy...sickening innit. We should just go in and napalm columbian feilds.
My, I'm getting a lot of love here. ~:smoking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
So how many do YOU know that regulary use/used drugs ?
I never wanted to argue that. Alcohol is (mostly) harmful, so are sweets. It's not because it's harmful that we should ban it. Freedom and making your own choices and such do matter to me. I would never advise anyone to take drugs (quite the opposite, including alcohol), but right now, in the mindset of most people user=addict, that just isn't true. One high doesn't make people addicts. Neither does one burger make you fat.Quote:
There is no discussion on whether hard drugs are harmful.
I do stand by my point that drugs themselves aren't the worst health threath, it's the crap that is mixed with them. Like rat poison in XTC.
Drugs also have effects that differ from person to person and dose, ritalin makes hyper people focused, it turns 'normal' people into complete psycho's if they take too much. I've had some BAD experiences with just regular pot (which i won't go into), most people can handle it just fine. Some people die if they ingest even the tiniest bit of a peanut. You can't always predict the effects a drug will have on you and that's part of the danger. But right now, with drugs being illegal, pretty much all info that people will get on them is hearsay, a friend will assure them it's safe, and they might believe it. Prescription drugs come with a 'manual' (don't know the right word in English), illegal drugs don't. Some ppor kid might not realize the dangers he puts himself in if he takes amfetamines and has a hearth condition for instance.
So yes, drugs can be, and for the most part will be harmful. I don't see that as sufficient reason to ban them altogether.
In cases like that, I tend to wonder whether it's the chicken or the egg that came first. A lot of alcoholics run away from their problems. A lot of potheads are just plain bored. Often people will do drugs for a reason, and just getting high to get high, often isn't the reason.Quote:
I have seen folks strung out, totally addicted to meth. I have known one person who became almost mentally incapable of social functioning due to persistent paranoid hallucinations caused by LCD.
I'm not saying drugs might not mess up some people who might otherwise have turned out fine. But how many lives haven't been ruined by gambling, for instace. We allow that (in a controlled way), why not drugs ?
Can: sure, will: depends on the user, the dose, and the quality, amongst other things.Quote:
This is no joke. Hard drugs can and will destroy a user or cause permanent disability.
There are tons of dangerous, but legal, substances we can put in our bodies. These things are regulated and taxed. Something being harmful is no reason to put the users in prison. Technology exists to field test people for being under the influence of many drugs, but its not used or mainstream because it may cause people to ask questions.
Nicotine is addictive, but fewer people smoke than 10 years ago because of education.
Using the battlecry "for the children" is no reason to put people in prison. Police tread the edges of the constitution going after drugs, they send 10 man narc teams into homes to find an ounce of marijuana and then charge the person with 7 different crimes -- wow, big difference they are making there, great job police!!!! If they find no drugs they scrape tables and pipes for residue until they can get the gram they need to charge possession, how creative!!!! Most police departments have drug interdiction teams the size of the homicide division or bigger, and most of what they arrest people for is marijuana. Drug squads have quotas like everyone else, both for budget retainment and to meet certain bust criteria to qualify for federal blackamil, er, i mean grants.
Doc Bean,
I'm a cop. I've seen my share. And there was a day when I was not a cop. And I saw my share then, too. Thin blue line and all.Quote:
So how many do YOU know that regulary use/used drugs ?
It is not a matter of banning all drugs, just the most dangerous. Again, it is about reducing availability and sending the right message about drug abuse.Quote:
So yes, drugs can be, and for the most part will be harmful. I don't see that as sufficient reason to ban them altogether.
I care very little about some of these, since they are habit forming rather than addictive.
I tend to agree with most that legalizing some drugs will help regulate purity, remove harmful myths, and create a new source of tax revenue that can fund addiction treatment and law enforcement activities.
And re: gambling. There are those who can be addicted to that, as well as pretty much anything. Including food, video games, and sex.
I believe in legalizing and regulating the drugs that do not have a proven link to physical dependancy with semifrequent recreational use and are not capable of causing permanent harm in one usage.
That would pretty much just be MDMA and Marijuana.
:laugh4: I tried once and found that it was overated. I have a friend that likes his opiates in general, and I am no stranger to the class. It's a joke, IMO, and I don't care for depressants in general. I can get nearly the same high from any opiate/opioid. (The best way to use them is to get a medium to smallish dose, and then to go for a jog, you can control the morphine levels generally then by deciding how far you want to go, and stopping when necessary.~;)) If you want to get down to it, I know at least a dozen people who have done heroin. One of them got semi-addicted for a week, saw how it was destructive, and quit. Heroin is only destructive when it becomes addiction and you do not have enough money to support the habit or become apathetic from overuse. Really, I find it amusing when people talk to me about the mental effects of drugs that they have never had. Do you want to know why heroin is more addictive than the other opiates/opioids? Only because it is injected and has a higher morphine content. This is the major reason why it can be dangerous to use: injecting anything is dangerous as heck, once it is in the blood stream, it's in there. This is usually problematic when an inexperienced user does it by themselves, and when the person does not know what exactly they are putting into them. There is no way to tell what the heroin was cut with, and there is little easy way to tell its strength. Surprisingly, these problems are from criminalization. The other problem is when use is prolonged and often. It does not take a genius to realize that shooting up every day is bad for you, and it does not take a genius to realize that getting drunk every day is quite a lot worse for your body.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Ecstacy pills are most often bad for you with extreme doses, such as twenty pills per night where the normal user has perhaps two to three, and prolonged use of high doses. Ecstacy use dehydrates the user. And so those retarded teenagers were trying to use the drug responsibly, but teaching them how to use responsibly would be absolutely stupid, as it would save lives.:balloon2:Quote:
By the way, ecstasy is apparently not truly dangerous in and of itself but its side effect manages to kill a great amount of dumb teenagers because they drink a little too much water. So the drug's legalization is quite justifiable if it would require an extreme amount of precautions.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that they are already morally incorrect. Begging the question in a big way. I would also like to point out that that is simply taught to you and you have about zero reason to think that use is immoral. Anyway, most of the harms of the drugs come from extremely high doses and very prolonged use. I wonder which ones you classify as 'hard'. Cocaine, for one, is not neurotoxic at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by DivinusArma
Nobody in their right mind would go to Mexico to use mind-altering substances. I might add that they still are incredibly taboo. By far most marijuana users and even heavy users do not go on to other substances. That is how ingrained the taboo is; both alcohol and marijuana put you into a more screwed up state of mind than most other drugs and even hallucinogens at medium doses.:balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by DivinusArma
This is utterly ridiculous stereotyping, and the entire argument against drug use is one big stereotype that they are all ****** up apathetic bums that leech off the system and steal your wallet, or kill your family. I started using drugs with a bunch of yuppies and still do. You are taught to look at the user like you look at a leper. The ***** will rape the white woman on cocaine, the pot user will rape your children, it's all the same load of rubbish. You never question it, and every case of an addict only reinforces your view, but you never see the majority that use responsibly, do not live on the street, would never like to live on the street, would not allow themselves to live on the street, and are otherwise law abiding citizens. I've seen more drug use than most here, I would be willing to bet, and the most destructive I've seen to date is alcohol.Quote:
The equation of permissiveness + availability + message of tolerance equals massive recreational use. Youth have always followed fringe rebels. Those are the "cool" kids. When I was a teenager, the baggy clothes trend and skateboards were still fringe, as were
This society is sheer hypocrisy. There is absuletly no logical reason to allow alcohol consumption and not the consumption of other drugs.
Using drugs is simply a more mechanical way of changing your state of mind, and can be much more radical where one can experience the world, thoughts, and styles of thinking that they would never be able to experience otherwise. I am very certain that my life is much more in risk when I ride my motorbike than when I'm am doing any drugs. I do not support the notion that nobody should be taught about drugs and how harmful we all know they can be. There is a responsible way to use the majority of drugs out there recreationally.
There are quite a few more drugs out there that I'm pretty sure you have no idea about.~;) I don't understand either of your criterion. Alcohol, Caffiene, and nicotine all fail the physical dependancy bit, and all three can cause permanant damage in one use. Alcohol poisoning kills, Caffiene in its pure form and higher doses easily kills, and so does nicotine. Anyway, you can use most drugs w/o becoming physically dependant in one usage. Zorba goes on and on about his peyote. You know the harms of that? Well, there are none, but it isn't alcohol and it changes themind for a short period of time, so ban the crap out of it, lable the users as murders, rapists, lepers, and social rejects. Throw them in jail, throw out the key and let them to rot. What a bunch of hypocrites.Quote:
Originally Posted by DivinusArma
(The F-Bomb and the N-word are way off limits, even when making a point - Beirut)
In order to counter all the harms that drugs have on people, I woud first need to hear them, and I have not heard many, if any, specific harms. :book:
Some good comments here, but also some angry assumptions.
As I said before, my concern is not morality. Only safety. Increased availability means increased exposure and increased possibility of experimentation. I think my train of conclusions is fair and logical here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
I disagree. Look at our friend Zorba here. He probably already has a plane ticket. ~;)Quote:
Nobody in their right mind would go to Mexico to use mind-altering substances.
I'm suggesting that this will change with time. America is an increasingly permissive society, despite the influence of "Christian Conservatives". Call it liberty, call it liberalization, call it a secular progressive movement, call it what you will. I see traditional taboos breaking down, for better or worse.Quote:
I might add that they still are incredibly taboo. By far most marijuana users and even heavy users do not go on to other substances. That is how ingrained the taboo is; both alcohol and marijuana put you into a more screwed up state of mind than most other drugs and even hallucinogens are medium doses.:balloon2:
Did you even read my post? I said suburban middle class. I never said anything about bums that leech off the system. I see the danger to our middle class youth. Urban gang culture is already occupied; they have neither the money nor ability to run off to mexico for narco-tourism.Quote:
This is utterly ridiculous stereotyping, and the entire argument against drug use is one big stereotype that they are all ****** up apathetic bums that leech off the system and steal your wallet, or kill your family.
These are the angry assumptions I referenced earlier. This was totally unfair.Quote:
I started using drugs with a bunch of yuppies and still do. You are taught to look at the user like you look at a leper. The ***** will rape the white woman on cocaine, the pot user will rape your children, it's all the same load of rubbish.
Again, you are making an unfair assumption. As I said before in this thread, I am open to reconsider if a good argument proves logical and persuasive.Quote:
You never question it, and every case of an addict only reinforces your view, but you never see the majority that use responsibly, do not live on the street, would never like to live on the street, would not allow themselves to live on the street, and are otherwise law abiding citizens.
Alcohol is very dangerous. As one of the Org's patron Saints of Alcohol, I concur entirely. It is addictive and abuse can lead to serious mental and physical destruction. Users can easily kill themsleves or others and not even be aware of it.Quote:
I've seen more drug use than most here, I would be willing to bet, and the most destructive I've seen to date is alcohol.
Agreed. But the risks of legalization for certain drugs are, to me, unacceptable. That is my opinion based on my education, professional training, and personal experience. As I said, I am willing to reconsider given logical arguments.Quote:
This society is sheer hypocrisy. There is absuletly no logical reason to allow alcohol consumption and not the consumption of other drugs.
Some recreational use of certain drugs is acceptable to me. Others are unacceptable because they can cause permanent damage to users after just a few exposures. This is not a debate on the dangers in the world. This is a discussion on the dangers of drugs. We are not comparing risk of death between various activities, only the merits of legalization and its political, social, and economic risks/benefits.Quote:
Using drugs is simply a more mechanical way of changing your state of mind, and can be much more radical where one can experience the world, thoughts, and styles of thinking that they would never be able to experience otherwise. I am very certain that my life is much more in risk when I ride my motorbike than when I'm am doing any drugs. I do not support the notion that nobody should be taught about drugs and how harmful we all know they can be. There is a responsible way to use the majority of drugs out there recreationally.
Again, assumptions. Perhaps you should smoke a little of your marijuana and watch Alice in Wonderland to set your mind at ease. Are you directing your anger to me personally, or are you expressing frustration with a society that does not agree with your point of view on the subject?Quote:
There are quite a few more drugs out there that I'm pretty sure you have no idea about.~;) Zorba goes on and on about his peyote. You know the harms of that? Well, there are none, but it isn't alcohol and it changes themind for a short period of time, so ban the crap out of it, lable the users as murders, rapists, lepers, and social rejects. Throw them in jail, throw out the key and let them to rot. What a bunch of hypocrites.
(Quoted language - Beirut)
If the banning of these substances is not based on morals, what the hell else could it be based upon. Ethics of a society is what forms its laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
In any case none of us here would know what would happen if hard and soft drugs got legalized because no such place exists where the government/medicinal company is the main provider of drugs like cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy.
Actually there are drugs out there that do no harm even if you abuse them (if you are sane that is), like Peyote, or the pure form of LSD, or Shrooms. Honestly there is nothing in these drugs that can do any harm to anyone, and yet they are banned, for no good reason other then our leader's moral high horse that "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?".
Thank God
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html
Quote:
Fox will ask "Congress to make the needed corrections to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense," according to a statement from the president's office released Wednesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Alright, perhaps...Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
You had me 'til now. Surprisingly, someone can relax quite easily w/o marijuana. Drugs are not the solution to everyone's problems, but you seem to think that all users think they are. Anyway, Alice in Wonderland would hardly be my choice. I much prefer the unmastered version of The Empire Strikes Back, Reefer Madness, or Transformers: The Movie. Remastering the original Star Wars trilogy was the worst thing ever done to Star Wars until the made the new trilogy; talk about stylistic clash.:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I wonder what the officials gave Fox to get him to back off on the signing of the measure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
*sighhhhhhhhhhhh*
Ahh, the power of the United States. Once again, we strike a blow for public safety through subtle nuanced diplomacy, as is our favored policy throughout the globe.
And when that doesn't work:
Bring 'em on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Traffic laws are based on safety, certain standards when building a house are based on protection-against-ignorant-consumers.
Quote:
In any case none of us here would know what would happen if hard and soft drugs got legalized because no such place exists where the government/medicinal company is the main provider of drugs like cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy.
Let's not forget that is totally isn't what mexico is doing. They're just saying they won't prosecute the users anymore and instead will go solely after the dealers. Many EU countries have similar rules.
I've heard several stories about people being stuck with permanent hallucinations after longtime use of LSD. Nothing too serious, but it sin't without its consequences.Quote:
Actually there are drugs out there that do no harm even if you abuse them (if you are sane that is), like Peyote, or the pure form of LSD, or Shrooms. Honestly there is nothing in these drugs that can do any harm to anyone, and yet they are banned, for no good reason other then our leader's moral high horse that "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?".
Here in the UK the drinking laws were set in the first world war as it was felt that drinking was meaning the war wasn't being won: more drinking meant less shells produced... :dizzy2:
So extremely recently we've had pubs able to apply for up to 24 hour opening licenses. The noise of outraged squealing as people predicted the whole place awash with booze, all pubs open etc etc.
In reality disturbances have gone down as people don't all race for the 11pm shut out, and can pace themselves. Many pubs have opened longer, but economics means that generally for a couple of hours. The change in laws has made things better.
I feel that the same can be true of drugs.
For those that optimistically think that they can ossify society into whatever timeframe they look upon nostalgically well, I am sure there are some midwestern towns that would be ideal.
Cops and other emergency services are called out when drugs have done wrong. The masses of city folks having their cocaine are not disturbed, nor are most of teh heroin users. Those that we do see are the ones that have been seriously affected - by drugs and usually by other factors as well.
I can see no logical argument against a slow relaxation of laws, bar people's own puritanical (and often misplaced) fears.
~:smoking:
I personally know someone that suffers persistent paranoid hallucinations as a result of moderate LSD usage. IIRC, its been about ten years since their last, "experience".Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Ride the snake, to the ancient lake.
Didn't Syd barret (original Pink Floyd) go completely insane because of LSD ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
He did use HUGE amounts though.
LSD leaves trace amounts in the spinal fluid, even from just one dose, I have never seen a study that indicates how much LSD use will result in "flashback" esipodes based previous use. All I know is that "flashback" esipodes definitely exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Now Meth - is a very dangerous drug, primarily from the fact that the cooking of the substance leaves dangerous toxins as residue, and the cooking process is very violatial. (SP).
Meth also destroys the brain, but then so does achocal and its legal.
Interesting point there Redleg. Is it that the residue in Meth is what is really destructive?
If so that perversely is a better argument for legalisation IMO - purity. Moonshine alcohol can be lethal with heavy metals from the distillation (copper, lead, aliminium, chromium to name a few) and of course the methanol or maybe even ethyl diol or propyl diol to add to the mix. In nice legal samples none are a problem, so most forget that one side effect of it being legal is this decrease in deaths.
~:smoking:
Well my brother used to cook and a good friend of mine works for the Treasury Department. Both told me the same thing about the residue and the cooking process. Very dangerous and very toxic left overs.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Achocal is legal - moonshine still exists regardless of the legality of achocal. Legalizing drugs does not prevent the dangers associated with Meth because of the actual ease of making the drug if one wants to take risk with their life and longterm health, to beat the tax stamp. (this is what is done with moonshine - its about not paying the taxes.)Quote:
If so that perversely is a better argument for legalisation IMO - purity. Moonshine alcohol can be lethal with heavy metals from the distillation (copper, lead, aliminium, chromium to name a few) and of course the methanol or maybe even ethyl diol or propyl diol to add to the mix. In nice legal samples none are a problem, so most forget that one side effect of it being legal is this decrease in deaths.
~:smoking:
Side note: That is what my brother was convicted of - not cooking but procession of ephrine without a tax stamp.
It depends on the person. Some people don't have the enzymes for certain drugs. LSD is the type of drug that for most people works fine without causeing any trouble, for others it drives them insane, and for others it does nothing at all. Just because you-knew-a-guy, doesn't mean it should be banned. It's like banning peanuts because some people are allergic to death of them. Oh but they are sooo good. ********! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
(Language - Beirut)
But we can test for peanut allergies. We cannot do this with LSD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
LSD works by bridging the synapses between neurons. Neurons are designed to carry specific signals from specific sensory sources in the body. Well, LSD does not discriminate in this way, and so bridges all synapses equally.
Your brain, programmed to recieve distinct signals from each sensory source and then categorize each distinctly, is unable to "sort out" where information is coming from nor how it should be organized for interpretation. This is because the synaptic bridges have been compromised and, at peak when the user "kaliedescopes", the brain is essentially recieving the same signal from each sensory source.
This is why, when a user is trending upward in the experience towards the peak, they "see" music, "hear" colors, or "feel" objects of their imagination. We all have a natural ability to visualize or see things of our imagination: experiences, objects, etc. On LSD, these imagined objects and experiences become all the more real because we "feel" what we see. An unnatural imagined presence can occur.
At the peak of the experience, a user's brain is entirely unable to distinguish sensory sources and their proper organization. Every sense comes together in a giant swirling blur that some users describe as a "kaleidescope". Some users equate this expereince as divine, believeing that they have seen God. Complicating this is the fact that other cognitive abilities, such as auditory-type thought processes and problem solving, function independantly of the sensory source. This can create a detatched feeling where your sense of self, for all intensive purposes, "becomes" a distinct being apart from your sensory perception. Your self awareness may be misinterpreted as being an external entitiy. You may perceive your self as an outside influence. See my comments on the danger of this below.
The experience subsides when the brain begins to sort itself out as the LSD degnerates in the synaptic bridges and is stored elsewhere by the body.
The danger is this: The brain may not be able to properly reorganize itself. It may cease to recognize where sensory information originates and where that info should be categorized. Thus users continue to have an LSD-like experience for extended periods of time. The scariest part is when a user's brain can also no longer distinguish between real or imagined objects/experiences. Thus a permanent state of paranoid delusions can occur. Thoughts are "felt" as a presence. Imagined thoughts of others, based on subconcious interpersonal cues, may become all too real. A user's own fears and insecurities contribute to this, building on this permanent alteration of perception.
The brain's ability to organize is fragile, and may be permananetly altered after one use or thirty or a hundred. It differs in everyone and there is no litmus test to determine who is most susceptible.
Allow me to provide an example experience at kaliedescope to demonstrate the risk. Think in your head "this is me thinking". Can you hear yourself in your head? Not hear with your ears, but can you imagine the syllables and pauses between each word? At kaleidescope, you may actually "hear" yourself think. You may then question the source of your thoughts and whether your thoughts are internal or external, since you have lost your ability to differentiate. Once this happens, you may then perceive that your thoughts are external. If they are external, then where do they originate? There can only be one logical conclusion: God. You have now convinced yourself that your own thoughts are the voice of God. Congratulations, you have just become insane. You are unable to distinguish reality from imagination. The two have become one.
If your brain is unable to reorganize itself from this point, you will be unable to realize that something is disordered in your thinking. You will be unable to reclaim your own thoughts and they will eternally remain "the voice of God", independant of you. And you will remain insane after your little LSD adventure is over.
There are risks to doing anything, what makes LSD so dangerous statistically?
Yes I read your post.
Did you even read my post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Ah, the lowest form of homour. Fitting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So. That's taking too much LSD.
If you OD on opiates, the affect on the brain is to depress brain activity. This will make the person very drowsy, and depress respiratory effort and the gag reflex. The person may choke on their own vomit or merely asphyxiate.
Alcohol is also a depressant and has similar effects in a toxic overdose to opiates although by a very different mechanism.
And so it goes on. I fail to see the relavance bar to say that all substances are fatal in overdose - people die every year from paracetamol poisoning from the stated dose. A very small percentage of people is succeptable and will develop acute liver failure. We don't know who they are until it's too late.
Ditto some anaesthetics to some people
Some eyedrops can be fatal to certain people at a dose as low as one drop. Detectable if a trained doctor is looking at the ECG.
So many things are potentially fatal I could be here all day!
~:smoking:
Yep considering the nature of the discussion and the content of your posts. Sarcasm is the approiate response to your comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
It's absurd to argue comparisons of dangerous activity. That is not the point of this discussion.
LSD carries a genuine risk of mentall illness. It does not take an overdose.
I understand that many are hellbent are learning for themselves, and that is your choice.
I suppose that education aside, I can only hope that some will recognize that usage carries a disproportionate risk to benefit. If I could go insane after one drink of liquor, I would never drink.
Social darwinism, I guess. Enjoy your drugs, my friends. I hope you survive. No argument will dissuade those who are committed to drug experimentation.
At least be educated:
www.erowid.org
Some good info and bad info. Read the variety of negative experiences and ask yourself if you would be willing to live a bad trip for the remainder of your life.