"Ecstasy fears based on 'flawed tests'"
Well, it's been a little while since I updated my blog. I am doing some temp work right now and don't have access to the Internet hence not much Internet trawling is happening right now. But as I was cleaning and organizing my computer I found this oldie-but-goodie.
Not to say that Ecstasy is completely benign, but it goes to show just how much fear-mongering was happening at the time this drug hit it big in Europe and US. It would be nice if research was allowed on all drugs so it can be clearly established what effects drugs have on people so everyone would be able to make informed choices. Seeing as our gov'ts don't deem us adult enough to handle these kinds of decisions they're choosing to ban them and use propaganda in order to make sure they stay banned.
Some day though...
Not to say that Ecstasy is completely benign, but it goes to show just how much fear-mongering was happening at the time this drug hit it big in Europe and US. It would be nice if research was allowed on all drugs so it can be clearly established what effects drugs have on people so everyone would be able to make informed choices. Seeing as our gov'ts don't deem us adult enough to handle these kinds of decisions they're choosing to ban them and use propaganda in order to make sure they stay banned.
Some day though...
posted by z @ 11:29 PM
8 Comments:
At 11:15 AM,
Rama said…
But... if this information was available, don't you think there'd be people that didn't choose to do it suddenly deciding, "since it's not as bad as they said it was"... they would start up? And that's no good. Because even if the "it's really bad" label was built off of flawed tests, it's still a "really bad" drug (personal experience has taught me thus).
Similar arguments about sex... the more info one has, at an earlier age, the more likely the decision will be made to participate before one has the maturity to fully absorb the information.
(not saying I'm a proponent of what I just typed... just something to think about. I'm on the fence when it comes to information dissemination--I have a long pro/con list)
At 11:53 PM,
z said…
information is always good! the more information one has the better choices one is able to make. the information should be as correct and all-encompassing as possible.
it's the same problem as free speech. you can always make an argument that free speech should be banned for a particular instance, but doing so enough times effectively bans free speech. thus, the only alternative is to allow free speech and deal with the repercussions.
in the same way information should always be disseminated and best preparations made to deal with consequences.
giving people choice means they are going to make some bad decisions. but the alternative is to baby them which effectively takes their freedoms away. and isn't the us all about protecting freedoms?
At 12:03 AM,
z said…
the sex thing is VERY tricky. yes, you could argue there are adverse effects of having sex too early. and while i acknowledge the validity of some of the those arguments i still must reject them.
those arguments go too far in protectionism. you cannot (and arguably should not) protect people from themselves.
if you teach kids about sex, the positives and negatives, then they can make their own decisions. they may make mistakes, but they will only learn from them. and by giving them all the information we will most likely minimize the impact of some of the negative aspects of these decisions.
for example, by teaching kids the beauty of sex and it's connection to love (as well as just pleasure) but also explaining emotional dangers and more importantly physical dangers (stds and pregnancy) we are giving them all the information. by stressing how important it is to protect oneself (emotionally, but especially physically) should they decide to make certain decisions we are minimizing the impact of those decisions. in effect, allowing kids to learn and grow while minimizing the potential negative impacts of some of that learning.
i think that is the goal of every parent (a healthy, well developed child) and should be the goal of the state as well - a healthy, well developed citizenry.
At 9:05 AM,
Rama said…
I can agree with that. But, for argument's sake, we see parents teaching children lessons in a particular order, because there are certain things that have to wait until other lessons are learned in order to fully understand them. Providing information before one is able to maturely absorb the significance doesn't help one make intelligent choices.
One comment: "explaining emotional dangers and more importantly physical dangers (stds and pregnancy)"... you're implying pregnancy is a physical danger?
At 11:04 AM,
Anonymous said…
The other thing to consider in the arguments for both sex and drugs is that youngsters (and oldsters) are usually basing their choices on a hell of a lot more than the 'information' they got off the state pamphlet. When it comes down to the moment, I don't think anyone decides to have or not have sex, take or not take drugs based on 'information.' It's based on pressures, emotions, desire, curiousity, fear etc. These are such charged issues, I don't think we can battle them with just information.
E.
At 5:19 PM,
z said…
rama - maybe not at the time, but it will be useful afterwards. i learned many things i didn't fully understand until i experienced them. afterwards i was able to finally fully absorb and appreciate the wisdom i was given.
i cannot deny the truth of what you're saying, but i still think that it is essential to provide as much information as possible, as soon as possible (whenever that is).
heh, ok - these days pregnancy is not a physical danger to the life of the mother, but it has an involved physical aspect to it which greatly impacts the life of the girl/woman carrying the baby.
funny thing is that this is the second time in as many days i've had someone make a note about my callous words regarding pregnancy. last night i was at this dinner party and the conversation turned quite vivacious when we started discussing men and women and inherent advantages/disadvantages they face in life (quite a fascinating conversation, btw).
so, of course, the women were arguing (quite vehemently) that they are at a huge disadvantage in the workplace (and thus with money, choices and power). and while that is true in some regard, it's not a function of the evilness of men, but rather the realities of business. i made a comment how a man would be just as much at a disadvantage should he decide to take a 6 month vacation from work for whatever reason. it just happens that should women want children (which arguably biologically most of them do) that this "vacation" will impact their standing and opportunities at work. so, needless to say one woman got all huffy and puffy about pregnancy being a vacation. i had to quickly correct myself to state that it has no impact on my argument what it is called and from an employer's point of view whatever you call it (vacation, sabbatical, leave of absence, maternity leave) the end result is the same - you are not there!
E. likes to tease me about the "foot in month" syndrome which i exhibit quite often. but the main reason for it is that i often use words in an off-handed manner in an effort to make an argument. the choice of words has no real impact on the argument, but people get stuck on the words themselves and make that into an argument.
the obvious conclusion is that i should be more careful with my word selection, but the reality is that i often care more about the argument rather then words and so i doubt this is something i'll get away from any time soon.
At 5:22 PM,
z said…
ok, and before this thread turns into a huge "which sex is worse off" (original "which sex is more screwed" was ommitted in an attempt to watch my words and avoid posts about the terrible pun) for the record i'll state that i do realize that in most developed nations women earn around 75-80 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man earns.
At 5:29 PM,
z said…
E. - well said! when i talk about information i'm thinking more than just pamphlets - education and parents are an essential ingredient. people take so much more from "real life" information rather than pieces of state-sponsored paper. and always try to present both sides of the argument - e.g. a class on sexuality could include one lesson in which a few people are brought in who had vastly different experiences with teen sex to talk about it.
and yes, in the end there are a lot of factors that influence everyone's choices, but knowledge always plays a part. for example, knowing how much fun ecstacy is, but also that it can leave permanent damage if over-used would not prevent anyone from taking it (might even slightly encourage experimentation), but in the long term should greatly reduce the amount of abuse and arguably even the amount of the drug taken period.
Post a Comment
<< Home