Legalize Drugs, Conclusion

Pictured Above: No shit.

Drugs. The word itself inspires A mix of imagery that is at the same time fun, dangerous, cool, evil, sad, and positive. I can feel the fast-rushing ambivalence in myself just thinking about it. I'd wager to guess that most people my age have the same lack of strong opinion about the entire issue of drugs.

When I say the entire issue, I mean the entire issue. Imagine I've just asked you how you feel about the "Issue of drugs". Your answers would come in all shapes, sizes and flavors, including but not limited to:

1- LEGALIZE THE LEAF BRO! It's like, just a plant! It would be like making iceberg lettuce illegal!

2- I think soft drugs are okay, but hard drugs are pure evil and should be illegal. Clearly, heroin and cocaine users deserve to be the victims of crime/dead/imprisoned because they didn't make the wise choice to be addicted to coffee and cigarettes like me.

3- Everyone in the U.S. Is over-medicated. What happened to like, eastern methods, ya know? Like watching "enter the dragon" on repeat until depression lifts?

4- Drugs are mad crucial. I'm on drugs right now. It's great, I feel all fuzzy inside and everything looks funny.

Not to belittle any opinion too much, these are all fine statements holding their own truth(does that sound post-modern? The doctors must have done a great job covering the lobotomy scars). However, opinions on "drugs" are all these things combined and then some.

Most people believe in medicine. That is, if someone is in physical pain it's certainly okay If they medicate to help manage it. What about emotional pain? Well, That too is seen as okay by most people. The line people draw in the sand is between using drugs to feel "normal" and using drugs to feel "damn good". But all drug use, among the sick and healthy, prescription, over-the-counter or illicit, is essentially the same thing: alteration of consciousness.

There are countless ways to alter consciousness, and not all of them are substances you can ingest. You can deprive yourself of sleep, sleep as much as possible, eat a whole lot, fast, meditate, watch stand-up comedy, listen to music really loud, do crossword puzzles, write, hyperventilate, hypoventilate, masturbate, fuck, use sensory deprivation, ride a rollercoaster, exercise moderately or excessively, self harm... the list goes on.

Which begs the question, what's the big deal when the way of altering your consciousness is a substance? Many substances you can use are more mild than these other methods. And even if they aren't, What's wrong with altering your consciousness, for recreation, and not just to cope?

Society holds onto the idea that the drug free, unafflicted individual is the ideal. If that's the case, everyone would be walking around acting like Penn Jillette and Henry Rollins. It's fine for some, but not for everyone. I suggest that if the majority population wasn't caffeinated, hungover and possibly dopesick during the day, and wasn't drunk, high, or possibly experimenting with psychedelics the rest of the time, the world would be a worse place to live in.



Pictured Above: A drug free world

It's well known and repeated that musicians, actors and other artists have an appetite for drug use and a predilection for drug abuse. What's less often said is there are tons of drugs users and abusers who are just regular people, and without the restrictions of the law; Joe-Six-Pack might be as common as Joe-bag-of-blow and Joe-eats-oxycontin-like-skittles. Since most drug users aren't trying to "just escape", but instead trying to improve their coping skills or find peace of mind, I think the effects would be a net positive.

It may sound a little too optimistic, but the status and popular opinion of all drugs is defined primarily by it's legal status, secondarily by myth, and finally by it's actual effects. When you look at the world of drugs as a whole, and I mean a real whole, prescription drugs and illegal ones all being equal, There are doubts about the legality and safety of each and every one. Each and every one.

The basic, uninformed argument is "There are certain illegal drugs that just don't do anyone any good". It's really not true. Many people have happy, positive experiences with hard drugs. If you don't believe it, read it from the horses mouth instead of watching "requiem for a dream" again. A demonized drug's addiction potential is partially physical, and partly because they're so damn good. However, if you think it's worthwhile to protect people from the possibility of addiction, nicotine, most anti-depressants, and caffeine should be outright illegal, right now.

My conclusion is that a relationship between a drug and it's user is such a subjective, personal thing with great variations. Some people are hopelessly addicted to cigarettes and suffer health consequences, and others try heroin and don't like it(really, read up) we can't make any absolute statements about any one drug. And if that's the case, They should all be legal. Each and every one of them.

That, or they should all be prescription. For recreational purposes as well as medical. But that would open a can of worms, dirt, and birds of prey we'd never get closed. Legalize drugs.



The feline community agrees.

Historians Fail Again

So, If you're not Familiar with Ernest Shackleton and his antarctic exploration, Read Up. And If his life's work wasn't enough, He left a drinkable relic behind with his passing, 11 bottles of Charles Mackinlay & Co. Whisky, at the bottom of the damn world, over a century ago.

Upon discovery of the liquor, many questions about it arose. And they have now been answered here. And the answers are despicable. Observe:

Q: A century old? Is the liquor any good still? Is it better with age?

A: Well, liquor sitting in an airtight bottle is just the same as the day it was bottled. Only aging in barrels effects flavor. Since most of the bottles recovered are airtight, It is ostensibly the same exact liquor Shackleton chose to drink on his expedition. However, the original recipe for this Whisky has been lost. So This is all that's left of it.

Q: Isn't it frozen?

A: Though the crate was frozen solid when it was retrieved earlier this year, the whisky inside could be heard sloshing around in the bottles. -22 degrees fahrenheit is not enough to freeze the liquor. For reference, 84 proof liquor freezes at -30 degrees. The proof of this Whisky is unknown, so it may or may not have frozen in the last 120 years. The flavor likely hasn't been effected.

Q: Oh, great. So I can drink it, right?.

A: Well, you can't, because you don't deserve to. But can anyone drink it? Well, get this, "no". They plan to put a syringe through a cork of one of the bottles, So that modern scotch makers can attempt to replicate the liquor.

Q: That's stupid. why? Do they need ALL 11 BOTTLES preserved in a museum or something?

A: Actually, after a bunch of smug scientists oooh and aww at it, it will be RETURNED TO WHERE IT WAS LEFT.

Does this make any sense to anyone? There are 11 bottles to go around, the Liquor is still good to drink. The attempt to replicate the liquor is great and all, but we have some of the original that's still just waiting for us to drink it! The Liquor itself has no historical importance, besides being liquor that isn't made anymore that was the drink of choice for a great explorer. He brought it with him to drink it. What's the point of leaving it? Would there be any difference If we just filled the bottles back up with wild turkey, and split the original liquor between the modern relatives of shackletons team, The modern explorers who uncovered it, and the scotch maker who will try to replicate it? It would be a serene moment for all of them, and the shackletons Scotch Whisky tale would have a great ending.

INSTEAD, All they are doing is depriving those who most deserve to drink it, being smug about how well they're "preserving history", and practically saying "Come Steal the Whisky and drink it". You read right. Someone will steal it. I know because If I happened to be around the south pole in a helicopter and someone said "Hey, want to get loaded on 120 year old scotch?" I would say Yes, and I would take the rest home and get selfishly drunk on it myself. Because it's silly not to. Childish.

That said, though I'm appalled by their decision, they've opened the next chapter. and I can't wait for a few years from now when I read "Local independently wealthy canadian tipler steals and drinks historic hooch, exclaims 'I'm not sorry'".

The Case For Downloading

I'm happy to have been born when I was. 1987. By the time I was in the early stages of puberty I could happily go on the internet and masturbate to real porno. Well it wasn't exactly happily, it was more nervously; half expecting my dad to interrupt at any moment to play DOOM. But that's besides the point. The point is that the internet changed the game right when I was becoming a sentient being.

Since then, there has been an ongoing clash of cultures. The clash is between the young modern, tech-savvy, sensible population, and money-grubbing, willfully ignorant old farts. The controversy started with music. mp3 downloading was happening for years in the early-mid 90's(I know because I did it) but it was not a big issue until CD burning became widespread. You know how things panned out there. Many sickeningly rich musicians campaigned to put an end to people enjoying their music in the form of free file transfers between private citizens. I was shocked to find out that the law actually came down on their side.

Of course, nothing changed. People who are inclined to download music and movies found more clever and efficient methods, and those who think intellectual property should come at an arbitrary price came up with silly halfway methods like selling downloads. This has continued to this day and the battlefield has turned into an embarrassing reconstruction period.

Here are the reasons why downloading music and movies free is superior:

1- It's fast, easy, and efficient. This should be obvious. You used to have to go to a play or see a musician to be entertained, now you can just dick around on the computer. There will still be those who want a hard copy of certain things, so they can buy one. But otherwise, the computer file is the smallest, most dynamic medium yet invented.

2- The artist does not suffer. This is a common myth to this day- "if you want to support this, go out and buy it, don't just download!". These people don't really understand how entertainers make money. Very little is made by actors, musicians, or filmmakers through selling actual copies of the work. The most money is made through
"the advance", advertising deals, residuals, shows(particularly in other countries), merchandise selling(pro-tip, never give up merchandising rights), finding pennies and nickles on the ground, asking to hold $10 and never giving it back, you name it. If you don't buy a CD, you are not depriving the artist of $14-18 dollars. You are depriving them of less than a dollar in the case of lesser-known artists, and a few dollars in the case of big names. Yes, it adds up, but it's not even close to primary income.

3- It levels the playing field. Particularly for music. Imagine the days before the internet. How did you find out about "underground" music? If you're my age, you probably don't even know. I imagine word of mouth, going to shows, and reading music magazines. So once you have the name and description of an artist you think you'll like, you buy a copy of his music, or if you're lucky, dub it from a friend. Then it's just a gamble If you'll like it. Through youtube and free downloads, the deepest of underground musicians has a chance. Buying an LP is a big deal, a gamble. Typing something in the youtube search bar? That ain't shit.

4- It sticks it to the man. A few unsigned emcees and plenty of punk/metal groups have just stayed DIY and produced and manufactured their own stuff, receiving ALL the profit. The internet is a new medium that's beyond even that. You don't even have to cover the cost of the CD-R to put something up on the internet. Trent Reznor, when his record company obligations were over, just released his new shit for free online. Of course, he was already rich by that point, but it's still cool. Of course most musicians want to make enough money through music alone, and they still can by selling hard copies, merchandise and playing shows. But music online is an absolutely FREE medium, and shows a lot of love for the fans.

5- Puts an end to some profiteering. I always bought used CDs if I could, because they were cheaper and worked just the same. And you know what? the artist didn't make a dime off of that. Only the record store did. Same thing with used DVDs. Between paying some chump a few bucks just to transfer a DVD from an owners hands to yours, and downloading that shit because it's 2010, which would you choose?

There are countless other reasons you might be thinking of right now, but the basic point is that those who fight the powers of the internet and file sharing are dragging their feet into the future. Whether not my reasons are good, it's a moot point- File sharing will continue anyway. Find a way to survive in the modern age.

King Cobe's True Stories: Medical Trials

I had recently quit my job because I didn't like it. It was about a year after high school and I had worked in landscaping of some sort(really any outdoor work) for about 3 years. I quit apropos of nothing, I just didn't want to do that for one more day.

Of course I had no better idea for a job that suits me, if I had I might have already tried to get it. Instead I was interested in other ways to make money that were not regular employment. The most interesting one, that required no practice or qualifications, was guinae pigging.

I checked the papers for medical trials, and most of them of course read something like "HAVE YOU TAKEN CRACK COCAINE? ARE YOU A HABITUAL CRACK-COCAINE SMOKER?". I hadn't used any recreational drugs except no-doz pills(while playing cards, a fairly unpleasant experience), but it occured to me that I could act as a control in whatever research they were doing.

Assuming drugs would be involved, I also assumed that they would be likely equal in side-effect potential to the illicit drug that was the subject of the study. So I opted for the alcohol one.

I left a message on the automated number they gave, explaining that I haven't had one drop of ethanol and don't use any illegal drugs, so I could be a control. To my surprise, They said they'd pay me just to be evaluated, which would include a urine sample, a physical and a psychological evaluation. The pay wasn't much, about enough to cover the expense of traveling to and from the place, with the promise of quite alot of money(If I remember right it was about $1000) if I was accepted and completed the trial.

Not having a car, I rode my bike to the light-rail station, rode that to lexington market, and walked about 2 blocks to the only existing subway line in baltimore. I took the subway to johns hopkins hospital, and checked in.

The urine sample and physical were understandable and what I expected. The psychological evaluation caught me off guard. At first it was about how much I drank and when, to which I answered nothing and never. After that it was a written test that seemed pretty standard, probing into whether I was obviously depressed or divergent from normal psychology in any obvious way.

I thought that was it, but instead; the female doctor returned and said she had "some questions" for me. She then pulled an enormous packet of paper out, one of those big cocksuckers you'd have to use a mega-stapler to bind. I said ok.

I had the impression my experience was unusual right away. All the questions involved anti-social behavior, in particular regarding the law. My guess is the first test tipped them off to some personality "disorder" I may or may not have.

Any way you may violate a person or property, there was a question about it. "Have you ever set something on fire?", "Have you ever stolen from someone's house?", and they all had follow up questions. For the fire question, it was something like "A. for fun, B. to destroy it, or C. because you were pressured". I was beginning to feel uneasy, especially because the book was nowhere near done, and I don't like thinking about destruction and harm. The funny thing is, I had done most of them.

The questions of course grew in intensity. The female doctor even let me know at some point that she is not the police. "Have you ever forced intercourse on someone?" for example. A crop of questions like that, I was feeling like shit even having to remember that I hadn't done anything that terrible. Alot of these later questions asked if family members had done them. The only one of those that had a follow up is "Have any of your family members been arrested". My answer is yes. "More than once?" Yes. "Were they convicted?" No. They didn't ask the crime, which I thought was stupid. As if simply being arrested implies antisocial tendencies.

My uncle was arrested in Ohio, while hitchiking, with no I.D., $10 in his pocket, and no fixed address. The charge was "Vagrancy". Land of the free, right? He asked the arresting officer if being poor was a crime. This was of course when he was arrested. But my answer of "Yes" to the question implied that a family member has harmed other people, and that I could too, because nature trumps nurture in a hospital after all.

After all this, abruptly, it was over. Any introspective activity or therapy couldn't have left me in as much of a funk. For the first time in my life, I wanted a drink. I just felt malaise and uneasiness. Having to tell a stranger that I've stolen from a friends house, broken stuff for fun, beaten people up and been beaten up. I answered honestly because this is science, and I shouldn't mess with it. She said she'd "let me know" If I was accepted in a couple of week.

That was it. I left, ashamed of some of the things I've done in my life, but of course relieved I hadn't harshly "victimized" anyone. I was also a little less trusting of psychology. The test, though enough to make me upset, had very little depth. The follow up questions are a good idea, but couldn't do as good as an explanation. The "has a family member been arrested" question being a shining example. Whatever conclusions she could draw from my evaluation had to be a bit off. Also I could have just lied the whole time.

I was accepted, but by then didn't want to do it. It involved taking some drug(or maybe a placebo). I remember "meth" being in the name, but that could be anything from adderal to MDMA to poison. I probably could have done it, but my evaluation left a bad taste in my mouth.

This story is so memorable because I was blindsided by my first encounter with modern psychology. And I wasn't happy with that I experienced. Coupled with the fact that the questions dug up all the "bad shit" that had ever happened in my life, I feel like my personality was markedly different afterwards. Ultimately for the better, I think.

Before the test I was a bit more of a romantic optimist and thought I might be a genius or something. Afterwards I felt like every other piece of shit, and that I had to work really hard at my ambitions to achieve them. A lot more self-critical. That's the story!