[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re[4]: The Who Sell out - Complete



>Sorry, Mark, but I have seen the effects of alcohol and valium and how my 
>dad used them to destory himself. Having had to live without him gives me 
>the fucking right to spout whatever I want about the benefits of a drug-free 
>life.  Who are you to dare to tell me otherwise? Maybe drugs didn't jump 
>into his system, but once they were there he lost control.  So I can argue 
>against them from that standpoint.

James:
I dare to tell you that drugs are not the "demon" because it's so completely
true. My mother is an alcoholic and I grew up with that (and no father too,
his death being the reason for the alcoholism, etc.). I certainly know as
well as anyone what can happen. I was out on my own at 17, and have managed
to build a life despite that...buy a house, two cars, large music
collection, and so on...all the while using drugs. I certainly don't blame
the alcohol for what happened...that's ridiculous! The loss of control, if I
even have to say it, comes from inside. So argue the point all you like, but
you're wrong, dude. The same argument could be used for anything. People
drown, so swimming should be illegal. If you want to start making things
illegal, let's start with the # 1 killer in America...the automobile. Oh,
well...that's different, eh? 
That crash you heard was your argument falling flat.

>One of the things you're missing is that I don't go to work loaded...
>Sorry again, but the tone of your post strongly suggests that you believe 
>you can "control" things when you're on the stuff.

Sorry right back atcha, but "at work" is the last place on Earth I want to
be stoned. I enjoy myself when I'm high...why ruin it by having to work? 
Seriously, I owe it to my employer to be straight. And that's it. Of course
I can control "the stuff," but I also know where and when it's appropriate.

>>That's responsible use. That's knowing the pitfalls and avoiding them. 
>
>I don't believe a word of it about "responsible use."  How can one remain 
>responsible when under the influence of something that alters behavior in 
>ways that are hard to control?

Believe it or not, it's true. Deal with it. Jeez, what DID you smoke in
college? It's hard to get stuff so strong that it alters behavior.
Get real.

>>And, for the record, the vast majority of people who use drugs regularly 
>are not low-life, out of work parasites. They are the people all around you 
>who do them and you don't know. 

And some of them are probably your friends, who are afraid to be completely
open with you because of this attitude. Your loss, in the end.

>I know--it's scary.  It'd be easier if that stereotype held up because I 
>could at least point out who my kids should avoid.  Drugs scare me, man, 
>because I've got kids, and I don't want to see them waste themselves on 
>drugs or live with this illusion that they can use and be OK. BTW, If the 
>people I work with are doing, then they'll eventually slip up and get 
>caught.  Drug testing is part of our culture here. If I'm guilty of jumping 
>to conclusions, so are you.

I have a 13 year-old daughter myself, and she's quite intelligent at that.
She's made the decision not to do drugs, as is her right (and I support it).
Should she change her mind (and when she's a bit older), I will be there to
guide her from misuse. And guess what? She's not warped or twisted by having
drug using parents! The only fault I can find with her is she doesn't like
The Who.
But she doesn't automatically assume that someone who does drugs is a bad
person. Most of my friends (all responsible folk) also do, and she can see
by example that moderation works.
Be afraid, be very afraid...but there's nothing to fear. I've never hurt
anyone, nor would I. Really, you're jumping at shadows. One of the
solutions, though, would be to have drug-using role models who DON'T screw
up their lives. Instead we have a drug users as villians and a Nazi-like
program for kids to turn in their parents. Which isn't working,
either...mainly because it's not telling the complete TRUTH about drugs, and
once kids find out they disbelieve ALL of it.
Drug tests! Don't make me laugh. A bit of Golden Seal will beat that. So
what conclusion did I jump to? Oh, and how about how unfair it is that an
alcoholic can work but someone who gets high on the weekends can't? Only IF
drugs are used at the workplace has anyone a complaint. Anything else is
Fascism.

>>Do you drink? I'd be interested to know.
>
>No, I do not drink. Have I tried drugs? Yes, pot when I was in high school.

You might have tried them but you didn't get them right.

>Or are you one of those self righteous people who are "drug free?" 
>
>I don't know how self-righteous I am (I imagine you would say that I am, but 
>I don't care).  I don't stand on soapboxes spouting a drug-free life.

Nor do I stand on a soapbox. I just asked someone not to add to the spread
of misinformation. That's a far cry...but of course, you're doing your
damnedest to vilify me.
>
>>If so, I can only say that your pride will be your undoing.
>
>What the hell is that supposed to mean? Should I start taking drugs to make 
>my life better?

You will find that your self righteousness will come back to haunt you. I've
seen it happen many times, as I'm sure you have. Jeez, you'd think that a
fan of The Who would be a little more open minded. This closed minded stance
is destroying the nation. Next you'll want to ban books that mention drugs,
then movies, then albums. Bye Bye TOMMY...("..the highest high...")
And no one said anyone HAD to take drugs. In a free society (as this one
claims to be), the right to lifestyle should be untouchable, unless it
infringes on someone else's (which mine does not).

>I can like the Who's music without believing for one instant that I should 
>be thankful to drugs for this music. Are rich black athletes supposed to be 
>grateful to slavery for its "contribution" to their lifestyle in America?

Do you really see an analogy between slavery and the drug use of Rock stars?
That's rather twisted. Or is this just a setup for an OJ joke? 
But one thing is definite: we wouldn't have the music if not for at least
Pot and Acid. If you like (or love) the music, which I must assume that you
do, then you've got to acknowledge the way it was created.

I see that you apologized in another note. Fine; I didn't ask for it (and
you do have a right to your opinion) nor did I ever seek it. Diversity is
the spice of life.
However, I'd rather get along with the people here. Accepted.
        Cheers                     ML