No, I mean the first several days of being on the Thorazine. I don't remember how long that last trip lasted. I don't think unusually long - just unusually off the deep end.
Eh, he is crazy as a the day is long. I feel for anyone who has a mentally unstable or challenged family member, but as your family gets bigger and you get older you tend to be little less soft in the belly about these sorts of issues. He himself did a lot of drugs when he was much younger, like 15, and his mind was still very much undeveloped. But, I tend to think of his schizophrenia as more of something he was conditioned towards by his early family life and the way they all interacted or failed to when he was growing up. Some people seem to think it is genetic as well. Having taken LSD and experiencing a trip to the hospital over what could only be considered a schizophrenic episode for a few hours ( I sobbed for no reason and handed a young boy a dollar bill while profusely appologizing to him for it) I can say I have been crazy, and will never be again Edit: I want to point out that my episode was days after I had taken a fairly week dose of LSD and a "bad trip" which of course I could never accurately describe to someone who has never had one of those.
LSD is definitely something you dont want to be doing when your 15. The mind is not ready for it. Any psychedelic for that matter!
Fact of the matter: If LSD is made legal, there will be far more people tricking people into using it. I can't think of a better prank for people to play, whether school kids or in college.... can you imagine? One drop of the odourless substance and for 12 hours they will be wanting to kill themselves, most probably from the walls dripping blood and the floor turning into broken glass, and they won't know what's going on, it would be terrifying. The effects really aren't the same for bleach/petrol or salt... are they? Right, so a war criminal is a hypocrite if he warns others to the dangers of war? No, he's not. A hypocrite is someone who goes against their beliefs of opinions. Does an ex-heroin addict have the same opinion of heroin before he did heroin? No, he doesn't. How can he be a hypocrite if he no longer holds the same belief or opinion of something? Ie. when I was younger, I loved my Playstation and was a Playstation fanboy... nowadays I'll tell you that I hate Playstations and Wii is the way to go - am I now a hypocrite eventhough my opinion has changed from 5 years ago? Look up the definition. Have you tried drinking a bottle of scotch? I have, granted, it was some moonshine in Thailand, but I got halfway through the bottle and puked, because my body rejected it. I don't know any 18 year old girls who can drink an entire big bottle of scotch without puking (they would most likely need a decent alcohol resistance and be bigger than 8 stone). You say it as if it's something easy to do, when it's really not. Compare this with a few drops of an odourless substance, you don't even know you're doing it. Out of interest, have you done LSD?
I'm not arguing against people's rights to take it. I said I believe people have the right to take it. It's just extremely dangerous. The difference between crack and LSD is that crack getting on your skin is no big deal. Someone throws a glass of LSD in your face and you're mentally destroyed.
I don't agree with this, Stox. We do it all the time in life, which is to learn from our mistakes and to pass on that knowledge to others. This is basic to evolution (small "e," progress, if you will). We burn our hands on a stove, we tell our kids "don't do it, you'll burn your hand." We drive drunk and end up in a ditch, or worse, we tell our kids, "don't drive drunk." We end up in a loony bin, and very nearly lose our sanity, we take a strong stand against our children committing the same error. It isn't hypocrisy at play. It is acquired wisdom, and the very natural human desire to share it.
I agree that we learn from other peoples mistakes and i think it is the corner stone of education. we take on board what others have done so we don't have to do it ourselves. This would be an accurate representation of what this man done if he unwitting consumed heroin, Or consumed it as an experiment, and after said "wow, that stuff is crazy.. I wont be doing that again, I better warn the others". But what happened is he willingly consumed something which he knew could kill him for a continued period of time, he knew it was addictive and he was no doubt warned against it. So after he didn't heed the warnings of other people, he now goes around telling others that they should heed his warning. This is the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy is telling others to heed his warning after he ignored everyone else's. I don't think he should stop warning people, Shared information is always good, But it doesn't stop it being hypocrisy. it isn't a fact of the matter. You can't possibly know this. In my experience when you give people access to something they become far more responsible. if you have never been to Amsterdam, I strongly suggest you go. It only takes 45 mins from London. We literally walked out of our hotel, Shouted "anyone selling drugs?" and within 5 mins we had bought an ounce of norther lights (the proper one), 10 dabs and a big box of shrooms. Not once did we witness any kind of drug related crime (or any crime for that matter) in the countless times we have been. When you give people the freedom to act responsibly they generally do. So your slippery slope fallacy of "if we make it legal more people will be tricked into using it, And then they will kill themselves" is nothing but that, a fallacy. They could put all sorts of legal substances in peoples drinks now, But they generally don't. You could go to a bar and secretly spike someones drink with absinthe, but people generally don't. if someone tells you to do something that they didn't do they are a hypocrite. Like i say, His actions are commendable, Good on him for spreading a message, But it's still hypocrisy to say "i didn't heed warnings, But you should". There was a time, before he started taking heroin, when he was aware of the associated risks and how addictive it was. he didn't heed those warnings. But now he gives out exactly the same warnings which he ignored and urges people to - unlike he was prepared to do - Listen to them. The fact is, It's possible to die from alcohol poisoning. and by your logic, the legality of it makes it easier for someone to be given it for nefarious reasons and as a result die. if you are going to say the legality of something effects someones willingness to use it in a nefarious way then that logic HAS to be applied across the board. You can make unsubstantiated claims and then say it only applies to the substances you wish it to apply for to bolster your argument. I would have no problem drinking a bottle of scotch over the course of an evening.
You don't understand the definition of hypocrite. A hypocrite holds a belief and does the complete opposite. If you believed at one time that drugs were perfectly fine, took them, than later realized they were bad and tell people they are bad, it's not hypocritical. Just concede the point instead of trying to be "just right". God. Maybe? Should we give people aids, so they'll be more knowledgeable about aids?
OK, I have to admit I didn't read the full example, Stox. I understand what you're saying here, but still say I don't think it's hypocritical, no matter what the circumstances of the "warner's" earlier use were. My brother, for example, was a bona fide smack addict in the 60's and 70's. He nearly killed himself with it, and very well might have succeeded to this day - Hep C, likely to lead to liver cancer. If one fucks up, what difference does it make if it was over casual experimentation, or certifiable addiction? I think you do have a good point - kind of like telling your kid don't drink, while drinking yourself. But if a person survives something, no matter how they went through it, I don't consider it hypocrisy to say "this shit nearly killed me...I was lucky. You might not be, I love you, and I don't want you playing with this." Edited to add: posted before reading Supper's reply: I agree with this point. In the example I earlier gave, if I was once an insanely aggressive driver, a load of moving violations, near misses, and near deaths due to crashes - would it be hypocrisy to warn your kid to not be an idiot behind the wheel? I personally don't think so.
His misses the point that to be hypocritical requires you be to conscious of the fact, rather than having a change in perspective over time. I guess since I believed in Santa Clause when I was 6 years old, that leaves me as a big huge hypocrite because I tell people that there is no Santa Clause. Curse me! CURSE ME!!!
You mean like telling people to heed your warnings after ignoring everyone elses? Well done, You get it. Your argument now is that when he took heroin he was oblivious to it's effects? Please, Don't call me god in public. Sir or master will suffice. Do i need to respond this nonsense?
Stox, I think this is an improper line of reasoning. There's lots of stupid things we do in life, knowingly. We later stop doing them, for our good, or for the good of others. Telling others, later, not to do those stupid things - how can this be construed as hypocrisy, if one no longer does it? It was always known to be bad, and you don't want others - say, those you care about - to do bad things, things that could equal or best what happened to you. As I said, I once survived a loony bin, and I knew there were risks with taking LSD. Like most brainless kids, I didn't really believe it would happen to me. Is it hypocrisy to tell my son my story, then, should he want to play with this crap? No, I do not believe so.
Please. I hate innuendos. Just come out and say what you want to say. No that is not my argument. Everything has positive and negative affects. It's up to the individual to decide what is good for them. This is a hypothetical situation, so you shouldn't ask a question about it because I can really pull out any reason I want. The reason is irrelevant. The point is that he thought it would be fine to do, learns a lesson, and changes his mind. Concede the point. I was just using your logic. You said if people have things, they'll be better knowledge of it. We're talking about drugs, so I thought using an example that is detrimental to someones health would be fitting. You don't have to respond to it. If I made a point that stupid, I would never respond to it.
There is something about a young mind that screams out "I am invincible! It won't happen to me". Sometimes its good to scream back at them "no your not dumbass! Don't put that shut in your body"!
There's no point in even arguing with him anymore. He won't concede the point. He knows he's wrong, but he'll just argue because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong. Ironically, the true definition of a hypocrite.
He is a hypocrite because when he was in the same position as them, being warned, he ignored the warnings. he now goes around giving the very same warnings he ignored and urging people to listen to them, When he done the exact opposite when he was in that very same position. it's the fact that he ignored all warnings and then proceeded to give the same warnings to others and urging them to heed them which makes him a hypocrite.
He's not a hypocrite, unless every person who did something knowingly stupid in their life later recanted and advised others not to do the same thing. It comes down to this, and I cannot agree this is hypocrisy. In some ways, ignoring the advice from those who didn't live through it - OK, a riposte would be, "how do you know?" While giving advice from a place of having experienced it - "my skin was on fire, and I prayed for death" - is a gift from the place of known reality. I'll have to leave it at this, Stox - afraid I cannot agree with you on this one.
I think if someone gets swept up in gangs, shoots and kills another gang member, comes out of prison 30 years later and tells kids that getting involved in gangs is a bad idea - it doesn't make him a hypocrite because he got involved in gangs 30 years earlier. Stox, if you honestly believe this is what a hypocrite is, then look it up in a dictionary. If you still believe it so, then we'll have to agree to disagree. The point is, make acid legal, make it legal for teens to carry around in a bottle, in nightclubs, in parties, in cafeterias... all they need is 1 drop of the odourless substance in a drink to cause a living hell for someone, which could also been seen as extremely funny to watch, as they have a complete mental breakdown. If you somehow think 'hey, these kids are absolute dicks and need to grow up, but give them acid in a bottle and they'll use it responsibly' I'd like to know what you're basing this from?
Who said anything about making it legal for teens? I always love that point to an argument for keeping drugs illegal, when in fact the illegal nature of drugs makes it much, much easier for teens to get. When I was a teen I could get LSD FAR easier than I could get tobacco or alcohol.