Personal principles

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 tehmarks 07 Feb 2021

This may be a bit of self-indulgent drivel, though I don't mean it to be.

The land ownership thread got me thinking more generally about personal principles. For a while now, I’ve tried to live my life by two rules: have fun, and don’t harm others in doing so. This test can be applied to any situation, and usually leads me to the correct moral path or the correct decision for me. I really, truly, fundamentally believe that people should be free to have their fun as they like as long as they are not causing harm (including to themselves) or impinging on the right of others to do the same. Isn’t it obscene, for example, that other people dictate to us what we can and can’t put in our own bodies, criminalising vast swathes of the population for what has been a human impulse since before record; to subjectively alter our senses through consuming some form of substance? 

I digress. I’m curious to hear what the fundamental principles of everyone else are. Whether others have a ‘guiding light’, a test like mine that can be applied to any situation to guide one to a good or justifiable or fair outcome and challenge one's own behaviour or decisions when they don't conform?

Post edited at 04:38
24
 WaterMonkey 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Taking drugs is breaking both of your own rules.

28
 Dax H 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Mine are simple, I believe in Karma. Help other people where you can, don't do anything to the detriment of others, have a bit of fun along the way. 

I genuinely believe if you do good things for people good things tend to happen for you and it makes the world a nicer place. 

4
 girlymonkey 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

The drug supply chain relies on children being forced to carry them around the country concealed in bodily cavities. It is definitely harming others if you chose to use it!

15
In reply to girlymonkey:

That's a consequence of the regulation preventing people choosing what they put into their bodies. 

Thats not denying that some drugs do destroy lives, or that regulation isnt necessary.

5
 Dr.S at work 07 Feb 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

Only because of the legal situation, decriminalisation might end that.

8
 Stichtplate 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

As I've gotten older stuff has got much less black and white. Personal principles should be malleable dependent on information available and the understanding that what's right for you might not be right for someone else.

Trying to navigate your life doing no harm to others is a fine principle, but not an absolute one. Sometimes causing harm to someone is necessary to stop them causing more harm to themselves or others. Sometimes kindness in itself can cause harm.

Personal morality should be a work in progress and unless it gets a bit messy from time to time you're probably not paying enough attention.

Try to put more into your community than you take out. Try to do as little harm as possible and be aware that if something human looks to be an open and shut issue then you probably could do with taking a step back and reappraising. But then again, maybe not, this stuff is difficult!

1
 Tom Valentine 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

For my money you should be allowed to put whatever substance you like in your body as long as you don't have children to feed and bring up.  

11
 GerM 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Does that mean that while the legal situation stays as it is you believe it is immoral to take illegal drugs because it harms others due to the way they are supplied in the current situation?

 wintertree 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

The risk with principles is that a day will come when they stand in the way of doing what needs to be done.

Adapt and survive.  Try not to be a dick in the process.

1
 BnB 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine

> For my money you should be allowed to put whatever substance you like in your body as long as you don't have children to feed and bring up.  

I used to come home from raves on a Sunday morning and played, wide eyed, with my toddlers until sleep finally took over. One is now a research scientist and the other just graduated from Cambridge.

My rule, that you might want to consider, is not to dictate to others how they live their lives, or bring up their children.

 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> For my money you should be allowed to put whatever substance you like in your body as long as you don't have children to feed and bring up.  

Well that's fine so long as you are an entirely self-contained unit. If you become unwell (not entirely unheard of with drugs) then presumably you'd be OK being left to fend for yourself? So much of societal resources are used up saving people from their 'right' to shoot themselves in the foot. I'd be fine with drunks and drug users if they didn't require bailing out by others.

9
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> The drug supply chain relies on children being forced to carry them around the country concealed in bodily cavities. It is definitely harming others if you chose to use it!

Not the drugs I use. I wish people didn't think all drugs were the same. Cocaine supply is an enormous industry of violence death and misery, drugs bought on the street through gangs involve harm in this country, but that's not true for other drugs e.g. which are made in labs, sold online and distributed by mail order.

4
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> Well that's fine so long as you are an entirely self-contained unit. If you become unwell (not entirely unheard of with drugs) then presumably you'd be OK being left to fend for yourself? So much of societal resources are used up saving people from their 'right' to shoot themselves in the foot. I'd be fine with drunks and drug users if they didn't require bailing out by others.

I don't think the risk argument stacks up for "drugs" in general (probably for heroin, where the chance of having to be bailed out is high), especially not from a climber. Most sports are far more dangerous than recreational drug use.

2
 MeMeMe 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

I don’t particularly disagree with your principles but the problem is in practise it’s impossible to ‘cause no harm to others’.

Who mined the minerals for your phone?

What damage to the emissions from your activities cause?

It’s easy to cause no harm to others at one level removed but all your actions feed into a huge web of consequences and some of those consequences will be of detriment to others.

As I say, I don’t particularly disagree with your principles but stating your principles is the easy bit, putting them into practise is the difficult bit!

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

> As I've gotten older stuff has got much less black and white. Personal principles should be malleable dependent on information available and the understanding that what's right for you might not be right for someone else.

I agree, I don't think moral principles work in general. Peter Singer's "shallow pond" example shows this well: we'd be a monster not to save a drowning child in front of us just because we didn't want to get our clothes dirty; but we ignore the unnecessary deaths of thousands of children every day that we could save much more easily by giving to a charity that could provide them with medical treatment. 

I wouldn't go any further than "consider the consequences of what you do".

Monkeydoo 07 Feb 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

Like coffe , tabbaco and alcohol  ? Oh and home grown herbs !   

We should definitely listen to the powers above , they know best and just care about are well being , , , apart from smoking , drinking and caffeine addictions

1
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> For my money you should be allowed to put whatever substance you like in your body as long as you don't have children to feed and bring up.  

This is a good example of risk assessment being miles out of whack with reality. If a parent smokes a joint, what's wrong with that? What about getting childcare for a festival and having an amazing weekend with your friends? What's wrong with it?

In reply to Lankyman:

If you are going to withdraw medical care from anyone who made an unwise decision or took an unnecessary risk then there’s a huge hypocrisy in just applying that to things you don’t like. 

The same argument could be applied to withdrawing medical care for climbing accidents, DIY accidents without adequate PPE or experience, an elderly person who fell trying to do something they should have asked for help with, riding a motorbike rather than a safer car, scalds from going to bed with a hot drink and accidentally falling asleep, tripping on something that you had known needed tidying away, health issues from not taking enough desk breaks in a sedentary job, ignoring that niggling pain until it turned into something more serious, skin cancer from not using a high enough factor suncream, etc etc. 

We all make unwise decisions. We all do thinks that we shouldn’t but think “it’ll probably be okay”. Sometimes this ends badly. Refusing medical care in any such situations would certainly reduce healthcare costs. It would also leave us living in a pretty miserable state of affairs. 

 Offwidth 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think you are being naive unless you know the producers. Most large scale illegal drug production supposedly has ties to dangerous criminal gangs and higher risk of quality control issues compared to legal production. I'm completely for legalising nearly all criminally classified drugs: to control use within the healthcare system, get tax income (from suppliers, distribution and users), guarantee pharmaceutical quality and rip out the most profitable outlet for gangs that cause misery across the world and save huge amounts of police time on direct and indirect crime that arises from these gangs and the cost of emergency's heathcare and social care efforts. I support fully legalising prostitution for the same reasons.

Post edited at 10:57
Removed User 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> For my money you should be allowed to put whatever substance you like in your body as long as you don't have children to feed and bring up.  

Surely you should be saying "..you should be allowed to put whatever substance you like in your body so long as it doesn't adversely affect children you have to feed and bring up".

..which is a variant on the OP's assertion.

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> I think you are being naive unless you know the producers. Most large scale illegal drug production supposedly has ties to dangerous criminal gangs and higher risk of quality control issues compared to legal production. 

Which drugs are you talking about?

If someone makes a load of a chemical in Holland, then there's a criminal infrastructure of importing it. Someone gets deliveries in bulk and and runs a business selling it online. What do you think I'm ignoring? The other nefarious activities the importers are up to?

Edit: what I think what you're saying is that some of that same product, once imported, goes down the streets/gangs route and causes harm there? That's true for some drugs, but I don't think that poses any moral issue about using that drug.

As for quality control, yes that's true. But so what, it's a bit annoying if your drugs are bunk (usually just a lower dose than advertised), but the risk of them being dangerous is negligible. A dealer sat with a bulk delivery of a product that's making people ill is not in a good situation in the market: on the internet, information spreads fast and there are fairly effective systems in place to make sure it does.

Post edited at 11:24
 Tom Valentine 07 Feb 2021
In reply to BnB:

> My rule, that you might want to consider, is not to dictate to others how they live their lives, or bring up their children.

I'm expressing an opinion. It's what UKC discussion threads are about.

As to not dictating to others how to live their lives, I've also made comments about fly tippers and sky lanterns on here. That's people living their lives in a way I don't approve of but very few people  seem offended enough to suggest I shouldn't be expressing an opinion about it.

Generally speaking iIdon't care how people bring up their children but if I think they are at fault I might feel inclined to say so, and why shouldn't I?

 Blue Straggler 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

is this an anti-vax post?! 

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

I haven't been taking any drugs, for the record, but that particular aspect of society is one that is a particular pet hate of mine. It causes harm — to those in the 'supply chain', and to those choosing to consume, as a direct result of prohibition. Young kids die in their first year at uni every year because they've meant to take something that is actually a reasonably safe substance, and actually ingested something far more toxic as a result of the criminalised supply chain. The harm that this causes is out of all proportion to the harm that ingesting the substances in question would cause, and has the double whammy of justifying this asinine policy when it's simplified to 'student dies after taking MDMA' in the press. The headline oddly is never 'student dies after taking MDMA that wasn't actually MDMA at all', which is more often the case. As an example. Our drugs laws are not based in rational fact or science, and it causes massive harm on a daily basis. But that's an aside.

I got onto thinking about this after reflecting on the obvious differences of opinion in the land ownership thread, and I thought it would be an interesting topic of conversation in my insomnia-influenced head. No principles can be absolute of course, and I am narrowing my rule down to harm caused to others as a direct consequence of my actions.

1
OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

No.

 Tom Valentine 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I sad whatever substance you like, so I meant the full range.

 Tom Valentine 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Removed User:

Happy to accept the amendment but that still wouldn't suit some.

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I'm expressing an opinion. It's what UKC discussion threads are about.

> Generally speaking iIdon't care how people bring up their children but if I think they are at fault I might feel inclined to say so, and why shouldn't I?

The thing is that people are pointing out that your opinion is based on bad information. They're trying to change the information you're aware of so you question your opinion.

It's obvious from this thread that the people who think "drugs are bad" don't know any information about different drugs, they just lump them all together as dangerous substances that cause harm to users and are distributed to the street up children's arseholes and sold by gangs. This is bad information to base your opinion on.

The issues surrounding heroin are different to cocaine, and are hugely different to LSD, which is hugely different to cannabis.

There has been an extremely successful misinformation campaign from governments worldwide about drugs, to justify their utterly bonkers policy. You can tell by reading comments here that most people still believe things they were taught as children and have never questioned.

Post edited at 11:16
5
 TobyA 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Before criminalisation the majority of heroin addicts in the UK were doctors followed by other medical professionals. Heroin isn't tissue toxic from what I understand. You can take heroin all your life with no real effects if you have access to unadulterated stuff and take it in a sensible way. I just happened to read this last night, and it seems quite relevant to this conversation: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/06/meet-carl-hart-parent-colum... 

 TobyA 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If a parent smokes a joint, what's wrong with that?

Interestingly in the social-democratic nirvana of Finland smoking cannabis in front of your children would be grounds for having the children taken into care by social services.

1
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> You can take heroin all your life with no real effects if you have access to unadulterated stuff and take it in a sensible way.

Johann Hari makes this point, and goes on about the "rat park" experiment where rats with miserable lives all "chose smack" but those with good social and sex lives, with plenty of stimulation "chose life". Not sure how much I'd lean on that result, but I certainly agree with the point. Millions of people take opiates in a clinical setting and don't get addicted. Once they've got a packet of them at home on repeat prescription, that all changes though...

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

And the issues surrounding all of those drugs are different again to the issues that lead someone to self-medicate from life in a harmful manner. I suspect that they will do that with something, regardless of the something, while their underlying issues remain issues. The substance they settle on is immaterial; it could just as easily be alcohol.

Meanwhile, legitimate research into legitimate medical uses for controlled substances is stymied by virtue of the fact that they are highly illegal. MDMA is already used in therapy for PTSD, and psychedelics anecdotally show promise as an effective treatment for depression. But it will be a long while before we find out either way, because conducting any form of research in those areas is tricky and fraught with bizarre moral judgements of those thoroughly uninformed.

No, not all substances are equal. I see no value in legal crack or legal crystal meth being made available to the masses — but I'm pretty certain that those who are choosing to indulge in them have problems entirely separate from substance use. Criminalising the use just leads to a wide variety of further harm.

Post edited at 11:37
In reply to tehmarks:

I find it better to think about values than principles or rules. Principles have a sneaky habit of coming to feel quite rigid and we will almost inevitably end up in situations that force us to violate them which can leave us feeling pretty crap.

A values based approach can be more flexible as there is less of a focus on what you do, but rather whether your actions are consistent with your values. 

Someone raised the issue above with situations where a rule to “do no harm” could obstruct effective action. Whereas acting in accordance with a value of “compassion”, for example, does not preclude causing some degree of harm where justified or needed as long as it is consistent with compassion. 

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> I find it better to think about values than principles or rules.

It's funny; I so nearly posted the thread on 'personal values', but eventually edited it to principles. You are right, there is a subtle difference, and principle implies something more rigid than the thought process in my head that actually occurs.

> Someone raised the issue above with situations where a rule to “do no harm” could obstruct effective action. Whereas acting in accordance with a value of “compassion”, for example, does not preclude causing some degree of harm where justified or needed as long as it is consistent with compassion. 

I like that.

 Tom Valentine 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm fairly aware that parents who smoke dope are a different proposition to those who use heroin. 

It was suggested upthread that how parents raise their kids is no concern of mine and I should keep quiet about it, but if my neighbours were both heroin addicts bringing up a young family then, up to a point, I'd feel that it actually was my concern, partly at least.

(For heroin you can probably substitute a lot of other stuff, it's just an example. That includes alcohol: if they were serious alcoholics, the sort who are drinking from their waking moment, then I would also be concerned about that, even if technically and according to BnB  it was none of my business)

Post edited at 11:49
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Totally agree, but the evidence on psychedelics is now well-established, not anecdotal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kfGaVAXeMY&t=2s&ab_channel=TEDxTal...

That's not even up to date.

I think with better education, many people could self-medicate with substances other than alcohol, causing less damage to their bodies. That's what I'm doing during this lockdown because I'd normally spend my time at the climbing wall. I can't work with a hangover, I don't particularly enjoy sobriety if I can avoid it, and you know, variety is the spice of life.

 smollett 07 Feb 2021

Cocaine and heroin production are horrendous for the environment, the countries they are produced in and the people forced into serving the industry. County lines is always the focus as it is so close to home but the production is just as bad.

Anyone using these recreational drugs should have this on their conscience. I'm sure this comes across as judgemental and will get plenty of dislikes but I have nothing but contempt for people trying to justify their little bit of fun by saying they can do what they like with their bodies

4
 bouldery bits 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

I think I just sort of do stuff.

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

But that is a rational opinion based on rational fact. I have no problem at all with that. The classic observation of organic coffee-sipping vegan hipsters indulging in a couple of lines at the weekend is not a bad observation.

Post edited at 11:48
1
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> It was suggested upthread that how parents raise their kids is no concern of mine and I should keep quiet about it, but if my neighbours were both heroin addicts bringing up a young family then, up to a point, I'd feel that it actually was my concern, partly at least.

I agree. But you do seem to be softening your opinion after input from others.

> (For heroin you can probably substitute a lot of other stuff, it's just an example)

What I'd point out is the misconception that among all the drugs people use, heroin is seen as an example, not as an exception. If you talk about illegal drug use in the UK, while heroin causes a huge proportion of the harm it makes up virtually none of the use. The picture people have in their minds of drug use just bears no resemblance to what is actually happening in society. 

There'll be millions of people using all kinds of drugs having no effect whatsoever on their parenting, because they love their children and only take drugs when the kids are safe with someone else (e.g. they go to a party and take cocaine, pick the kids up in the morning). The life-destroying effects of drugs generally happen to people who basically start out with nothing to lose. People with jobs and families don't descend into chaos *because of* drugs. People with jobs and families use drugs in all sorts of different ways and continue living normal lives - drug use per se just isn't a moral issue. Although becoming a crystal meth addict and then getting pregnant is a moral issue.

Post edited at 11:57
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

> Cocaine and heroin production are horrendous for the environment, the countries they are produced in and the people forced into serving the industry. County lines is always the focus as it is so close to home but the production is just as bad.

> Anyone using these recreational drugs should have this on their conscience. I'm sure this comes across as judgemental and will get plenty of dislikes but I have nothing but contempt for people trying to justify their little bit of fun by saying they can do what they like with their bodies

I absolutely agree with you (but not many people use heroin recreationally, although I guess some do). Cocaine is such a weird one, because it's such a shit drug anyway, yet it's amazingly popular and causes an unfathomable amount of destruction.

 TobyA 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Oh. I'm not saying it's not addictive - it clearly is, although Prof. Hart's point seems to be giving up isn't nearly as difficult as some like to say, but you can be addicted to lots of things without it doing you physical harm.

Post edited at 12:06
 TobyA 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I'm fairly aware that parents who smoke dope are a different proposition to those who use heroin. 

From the article I linked above:

As Hart continues: “I do not have a drug-use problem. Never have. Each day, I meet my parental, personal and professional responsibilities. I pay my taxes, serve as a volunteer in my community on a regular basis and contribute to the global community as an informed and engaged citizen. I am better for my drug use.”

 gravy 07 Feb 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

Let's get a bit of perspective on that: "mules carrying drugs around the place in body cavities".  This is a product of criminalisation rather than a product of drug taking.

[test - can drug taking without criminalisation take place without mules? yes - examples: alcohol, tobacco, paracetamol. Ergo mules result from criminalisation not drug taking].

 Tom Valentine 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I agree. But you do seem to be softening your opinion after input from others.

One of the benefits of UKC.

I used to think ocean cruises and letting your dog crap in a livestock field were OK but UKC has altered my opinion . I'm still out of step with regard to boxing, though, and I won't be softening my opinion on that any time in the near future', as a matter of personal principle.

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> Oh. I'm not saying it's not addictive - it clearly is, although Prof. Hart's point seems to be giving up isn't nearly as difficult as some like to say, but you can be addicted to lots of things without it doing you physical harm.

Sorry, that was me going on a bit of a tangent. Not read the article yet, but I appreciate that being addicted safely is a thing too. Although I imagine it's quite a hard line to tread, especially for people who aren't professors...

Removed User 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

> Cocaine and heroin production are horrendous for the environment, the countries they are produced in and the people forced into serving the industry. County lines is always the focus as it is so close to home but the production is just as bad.

Bollocks I'm afraid.

What is more ecologically damaging, the destruction of the rainforests for the production of soy for cattle feed or the cultivation of coca? The harm that the production of drugs causes is mainly due to their illegality.

2
 marsbar 07 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

In front of your children is the issue presumably.  

Is this reasonable based on second hand smoke and risk of normalizing substance use, or more of a knee jerk?  

Personally I don't approve of people smoking anything with children in the room.  Never had a problem with any of my teenage parents and the concept that they shouldn't smoke in the same room as their child, non of them ever disagreed with the principle and they never did in front of me.  Obviously I don't know if they ever lapsed when I wasn't there, but they were the generation who had always associated smoking with going outside anyway.  

 marsbar 07 Feb 2021
In reply to gravy:

Until and unless drugs are decriminalised then the harm caused by criminalization is still an issue.  You can blame the system all you want, the fact is that there are victims involved.  

 Stichtplate 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

> Cocaine and heroin production are horrendous for the environment, the countries they are produced in and the people forced into serving the industry. County lines is always the focus as it is so close to home but the production is just as bad.

> Anyone using these recreational drugs should have this on their conscience. 

Fair point, with one amendment: anyone advocating prohibition should also have this on their conscience.

Removed User 07 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

While certainly true, functioning heroin addicts are like functioning alcoholics.

Minorities.

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Personally I don't approve of people smoking anything with children in the room.

I agree with the sentiment, but a bit of personal anecdote: I grew up with two smoking parents. All that instilled into me is how disgusting and pointless smoking cigarettes is, and I still feel strongly about it now, in my thirties. I've never had any desire to even try, predominantly because of my parents smoking around me all the time when I was younger.

 marsbar 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

People who use heroin do have something to lose.  I've seen some of them lose everything.  Jobs, relationships, family, their children and sometimes their lives.  It might start after one loss, a bereavement perhaps, or a childhood trauma but having had one loss doesn't mean they have nothing else.  

They reach nothing to lose after they lose everything and then it gets even worse.  

 marsbar 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

My mum smoked.  I don't.  

We've broken the cycle there, but the damage done to childrens health from second hand smoke is known now.  It wasn't when my mum was younger.  

Hence my view is do what you want to your body, but don't smoke with children in the room. 

 Stichtplate 07 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> Oh. I'm not saying it's not addictive - it clearly is, although Prof. Hart's point seems to be giving up isn't nearly as difficult as some like to say, but you can be addicted to lots of things without it doing you physical harm.

I've read convincing studies indicating tobacco is far harder to quit than smack, something borne out by the number of ex IV drug users I've met that just can't kick the fags.

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

The criminal classification is ultimately something within our power to change, and so the root cause of the harm can only be laid at the door of 'the system'.

We can pretend all we like, but people will continue to choose to alter their perception of the world regardless of the legal classification of the substances they choose to do it with. That is an immutable fact. We can eradicate a huge amount of harm in the world by taking a science-based approach to substance classification.

Until we do, I'm laying the blame firmly at the doors of the people who keep up this dogma.

1
OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

Like I said, I agree. Again we come back to not causing harm to other people in having your own variety of fun.

 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't think the risk argument stacks up for "drugs" in general (probably for heroin, where the chance of having to be bailed out is high), especially not from a climber. Most sports are far more dangerous than recreational drug use.


Can you explain why there are/have been multiple programmes to try and get people off drugs and none for sport? Quite the opposite for sport in fact.

 Maggot 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

Re baccy: I can well believe that.  I couldn't stop for 40 years.  At least with drugs you get a hit!

I thank the Chinese for inventing vaping

 Stichtplate 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> Can you explain why there are/have been multiple programmes to try and get people off drugs and none for sport? Quite the opposite for sport in fact.

Prejudice I'd imagine. I've got a couple of mates who're rabid Preston North End fans and I've often considered trying to arrange an intervention.

 Stichtplate 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Maggot:

> Re baccy: I can well believe that.  I couldn't stop for 40 years.  At least with drugs you get a hit!

Nearly 30 years of unfiltered rollies, then cold turkey and two weeks of Hell. 

 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> If you are going to withdraw medical care from anyone who made an unwise decision or took an unnecessary risk then there’s a huge hypocrisy in just applying that to things you don’t like. 

> The same argument could be applied to withdrawing medical care for climbing accidents, DIY accidents without adequate PPE or experience, an elderly person who fell trying to do something they should have asked for help with, riding a motorbike rather than a safer car, scalds from going to bed with a hot drink and accidentally falling asleep, tripping on something that you had known needed tidying away, health issues from not taking enough desk breaks in a sedentary job, ignoring that niggling pain until it turned into something more serious, skin cancer from not using a high enough factor suncream, etc etc. 

> We all make unwise decisions. We all do thinks that we shouldn’t but think “it’ll probably be okay”. Sometimes this ends badly. Refusing medical care in any such situations would certainly reduce healthcare costs. It would also leave us living in a pretty miserable state of affairs. 


You seem to be equating something that is keeping people fit, healthy and active (and so a benefit to society) with drug taking which does far more damage to individuals and is a drain on society. If figures exist showing that drugs/alcohol are pro rata as safe as climbing or any other healthy sport then I'd be more than surprised.

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> Can you explain why there are/have been multiple programmes to try and get people off drugs and none for sport? Quite the opposite for sport in fact.

Certainly. I'm not arguing that all told, drugs and sports have the same balance of risk and benefit. Sports have huge benefits that drugs don't have. That's why we encourage people to do sports, we think that the benefits far outweigh the risks. That doesn't mean the risks aren't real and don't cost money though, they really do.

The risk and cost to the NHS of this happening in sport is vast, as a proportion of those who do it. Out of all the people who drink and use drugs, a tiny tiny fraction have to be "bailed out". Lots more if you consider tobacco of course, and gradual knackering of the body from a lifetime of boozing.

1
OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

It's just not that simple though, is it? 'Drugs' are not a single item any more than 'sports' is a specific rule-based game.

The government's former chief adviser on drugs policy published a study in the Lancet that quantified the harm caused to self and society of the most commonly-abused drugs. Alcohol is the clear winner of overall harm, and is legal. At the other end of the scale, with virtually no harm to self or society, we have shrooms. Which are class A.

1
 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Prejudice I'd imagine. I've got a couple of mates who're rabid Preston North End fans and I've often considered trying to arrange an intervention.

Poor b@stards! I'd start a charity up for them asap.

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> If figures exist showing that drugs/alcohol are pro rata as safe as climbing or any other healthy sport then I'd be more than surprised.

Before I go on a google search for this, just think about it intuitively.

How many people do you know who drink? How many people do you know who've been hospitalised from drink?

How many people do you know who do sport (especially bloody mountain biking and skiing!). How many people do you know who have been hospitalised from sport?

Take the drug MDMA. David Nutt did crunch the numbers exactly as you ask, and came up with the fact that it was safer to take an e than go horse riding. It was true. But he got sacked for saying it, because it goes against false narrative we as society believe about drug use. The facts do not support your opinion.

2
 Stichtplate 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

17 million Brits regularly take mind altering drugs.

30 million Brits regularly drink alcohol.

and those figures are just for stuff that can be bought at the off licence or had from the chemist.

This stuff absolutely isn’t black and white

2
 TobyA 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> While certainly true, functioning heroin addicts are like functioning alcoholics.

> Minorities.

I'm sure that's absolutely true - now, while the addicts need to source illegal, expensive and probably adulterated drugs on a regular basis.

Alcoholism is clearly not good for your health but people function for years as alcoholics, even though it ultimately damages their health, because they can just pop into a shop and buy their addictive substance legally, safely and cheaply. I had a boss at one point who was like that - it wasn't like his drinking didn't cause any problems at all, but he still was appointed to the position and did the job as an alcoholic.

A guy I knew told me his brother in Glasgow was like this with heroin. He and his wife would take it every evening - because they were addicts, but work their jobs (running a small but successful landscaping business I think it was 5 days a week). Of course he was reliant on finding a safe and reliable supplier, and I guess that's always a risk as your supplier, even if he is selling reliable strength and not adulterated with dangerous stuff product, remains a smack dealer who is possibly going to get nicked at any point!

But yeah - so many problems come from the criminalization of the drug, not the drug itself.

 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> It's just not that simple though, is it? 'Drugs' are not a single item any more than 'sports' is a specific rule-based game.

> The government's former chief adviser on drugs policy published a study in the Lancet that quantified the harm caused to self and society of the most commonly-abused drugs. Alcohol is the clear winner of overall harm, and is legal. At the other end of the scale, with virtually no harm to self or society, we have shrooms. Which are class A.

But really it is that 'simple'. Sport participation overall is a benefit to society and drugs (alcohol incl) are not. I've engaged in outdoor sport all my life and only once required medical treatment for stitches in a finger. I'm not a doctor botherer as a result. If I'd chosen decades of drugs and booze instead I wonder how I'd have fared?

4
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> People who use heroin do have something to lose.

> They reach nothing to lose after they lose everything and then it gets even worse.  

Good point. To be more careful, I should say "many people who get addicted to drugs like heroin feel very like they've got nothing to lose in the first place, or something else has sent them into descent to that point, with drugs playing a role in speeding it up".

 smollett 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Removed User:

Not bollocks at all. Nobody is denying rainforest destruction is happening for soya/grazing. Arguably bigger problems dont negate the harmful impact cocaine production has on this environment.

The production process for coke occurs mainly in the rainforest. Petrol, cement, ammonia, sulphuric acid, sodium permanganate, bleach and a number of other chemicals are used in the production process, the majority of this ending up in the watercourses.

Opening up regions for cocaine production hooks the indigenous population into capitalism and we know how well that goes for the environment.

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> I'm not a doctor botherer as a result. If I'd chosen decades of drugs and booze instead I wonder how I'd have fared?

Probably wouldn't have had to have the stiches.

I've chosen decades of booze and drugs, and haven't seen a GP in years. None of my visits to the GP in my whole life have been booze or drug related. In years of hanging out with people doing plenty of drugs, I've witnessed one hospitalisation. In sport I've got no idea - maybe 20 or 30?

Your perception of the risk involved in drugs is miles out of whack.

2
 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Before I go on a google search for this, just think about it intuitively.

> How many people do you know who drink? How many people do you know who've been hospitalised from drink?

> How many people do you know who do sport (especially bloody mountain biking and skiing!). How many people do you know who have been hospitalised from sport?

> Take the drug MDMA. David Nutt did crunch the numbers exactly as you ask, and came up with the fact that it was safer to take an e than go horse riding. It was true. But he got sacked for saying it, because it goes against false narrative we as society believe about drug use. The facts do not support your opinion.


Don't waste your time, Jon. Take a pill (or whatever) and chill. I'm perfectly fine with my opinion as I know intuitively that I'm right. I don't have to Google or take MDMA or any other drug legal or otherwise to know it's a can of dangerous worms. As I've said upthread not one single organisation exists to wean people away from sport and many exist to get people off drugs. Are they all deluded? And I got pissed when young, learned a lesson and walked away.

7
OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

Another bit of personal anecdote I'm happy to share publicly: I feel my life and my mental wellbeing is immeasurably improved having discovered psychedelics a few years ago. I am a more productive member of society, calmer, fairer and much happier in my own head than I've ever felt at any point in my life prior. Psychedelics are not the sole reason, but I truly believe that they've played a massive part in that.

I don't go smashing a tab of acid every night. That's not how it works — you simply can not physically do that due to the way your body processes it, let alone having any desire to. What I'm saying is that I have irregular and infrequent contact with psychedelics, and I can identify the positive change that results, and I can identify it for months thereafter. Long after one has stopped 'tripping'.

I'm now far less likely to appear in the mental health statistics of any hospital, and I'm far less likely to become a statistic from dangerous and irresponsible climbing (soloing) behaviour. Is that not a benefit to society?

2
 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> > I'm not a doctor botherer as a result. If I'd chosen decades of drugs and booze instead I wonder how I'd have fared?

> Probably wouldn't have had to have the stiches.

> I've chosen decades of booze and drugs, and haven't seen a GP in years. None of my visits to the GP in my whole life have been booze or drug related. In years of hanging out with people doing plenty of drugs, I've witnessed one hospitalisation. In sport I've got no idea - maybe 20 or 30?

> Your perception of the risk involved in drugs is miles out of whack.


Good luck with your lifestyle!

1
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> I don't have to Google or take MDMA or any other drug legal or otherwise to know it's a can of dangerous worms.

Well you could learn about what the actual levels of risk are so you could have a well-informed opinion based on a rational analysis of the facts. But you'd obviously rather not. Fine.

> As I've said upthread not one single organisation exists to wean people away from sport and many exist to get people off drugs. Are they all deluded?

You refuse to grasp the basic point that "drugs" are not a single thing. Heroin is extremely addictive and organisations spend millions trying to address the problems it creates.

No organisation in the world exists to "wean people off LSD" because that's not a thing. When you talk about "drugs" you make zero distinction between things which are radically different. It's like saying "you shouldn't have animals in your house because animals eat people".

2
 Blue Straggler 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Is this entirely a recreational drugs thread? 

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

It wasn't meant to be, but it appears that that is what it has become. I'm okay with that; I think it's an interesting conversation topic regardless. Makes an interesting change from entrenched Brexit and lockdown views.

1
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> Good luck with your lifestyle!

What do you mean? Do you think I'm smashed on drugs all the time? I like wine in the evenings, occasionally psychedelics (which have no physical harms), and some other pretty mild substances that are enjoyable for listening to music, drifting off to sleep, etc.

It's not a 'lifestyle' - it's just some drugs that I like using. My 'lifestyle' is my job and hobbies and social life, not my choice of inebriants.

1
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Is this entirely a recreational drugs thread? 

As soon as someone says "drugs are bad" or "drugs are fun" it inevitably becomes that because it's such a divisive issue.

 Neil Williams 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

I think I'm not dissimilar.  Generally try to avoid doing bad to others, and if possible do good to others, while enjoying your life.  Not always 100% possible to avoid doing bad to others, e.g. a failing business might have no choice but to make redundancies, but in doing so be as sensitive to them as you can if you absolutely do have to.

Or something like that.

Or, put differently, I take a lot of input from the Scout Law, which does follow those sorts of line.

 Blue Straggler 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

are you finding this thread interesting?! 

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Immeasurably more so than yet another pointless debate on whether it's okay to go soloing 3.61 miles from one's front door after making a detour to Starbucks.

1
 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> What do you mean? Do you think I'm smashed on drugs all the time? I like wine in the evenings, occasionally psychedelics (which have no physical harms), and some other pretty mild substances that are enjoyable for listening to music, drifting off to sleep, etc.

> It's not a 'lifestyle' - it's just some drugs that I like using. My 'lifestyle' is my job and hobbies and social life, not my choice of inebriants.

OK Jon, if you say so for your own personal situation. You're intelligent enough to compartmentalize your drug taking and separate it from the rest of your life. Does that mean that that's the case for everyone? Should everyone in society have access to these substances? Which ones should be allowed or should there be an IQ test to protect those who need it. Who should decide? As I think I said earlier I've no axe to grind over whatever substances people put into themselves if they're happy to do so. What I object to is society picking up the pieces when it goes wrong. Anyone who goes out for the day to exercise should be encouraged as it's on balance a societal benefit. Anyone who takes drugs thinking that's a societal benefit needs to think again. Your experience of climbing related hospitalisations seems quite dramatic to me. In my own experience of almost 50 years walking, caving and climbing (all three in parallel for several decades) I can barely recall any either in my group or around me. Count them on the fingers of one hand. I don't take illegal drugs so don't move in those circles but over a similar time period it's certain to me that the amount of medical intervention or psychological help required would be much greater.

I also like a glass of wine occasionally. Probably about every other month or so, it's not a big deal for me. In my teens at Uni I decided not to take drugs as they were of no interest whatsoever. Caving and then climbing came first and anything that potentially interfered wasn't on. I've always viewed drug taking as a road to nowhere of any use or interest. Perhaps for some they're a way to take the rough edges off reality. Let me know as I really don't understand why anyone takes drugs.

3
 Tom Walkington 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

I think that living a healthy lifestyle is a good thing.People who consume harmful substances and claim it improves their well being are deluding themselves.I know this sounds dogmatic,and I may be wrong,but that is my take on it.All power to Lankyman,but get yourself climbing,you know it makes sense.

7
 mbh 07 Feb 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> The risk with principles is that a day will come when they stand in the way of doing what needs to be done.

Orwell thought of that in rule 6 of his 6 rules for good writing:

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Walkington:

I think it's difficult for some to conceive of an artificial chemical which leads to lasting thoughts of productivity, of creativity, of rational perspective and which leaves you so thoroughly exhausted by the strenuous mental workout that you are left with absolutely no intention of repeating it in the near future.

We're all unique and have our unique challenges, and we all have our own ways of coping with these. Some people see genuine benefit from using some substances, and for those people why should it not be a part of their mental health toolkit?

The important thing is to take a healthy approach to whatever it is that you do to sort yourself out — whether it be climbing hard routes, or soloing, or drinking with your mates at the weekend, or drugs, or whatever. I'd never condone using anything — sport, career, drug, anything — in a self-destructive sort of way. But the self-destructive tendency is detached from the thing you're doing to facilitate it. You can take a self-harmful approach to anything in your life; it doesn't need to come in pill form. They're all dangerous behaviours.

I appreciate that I'm coming across as a drugged-up madman. Nothing could be further from the truth. I generally get my kicks from being in nature: for me boredom is the enemy, and I usually find the outdoors a great, organic way of solving that. There's always fun to be had if you try hard enough. It's a point I'm always going to argue though because it genuinely offends me that kids die every year from this ludicrous prevailing attitude. It's self-fulfilling: drugs are bad, so we criminalise them, so people die nearly always as a result of taking something other than what they actually wanted to because there is no guarantee of quality or any accountability in the supply, and so drugs are bad because kids are dying from taking drugs, and so on we go.

The bottom line is that kids die, and their deaths are usually linked to the problems created by prohibition. That's not on.

 Dr.S at work 07 Feb 2021
In reply to GerM:

I think that’s a reasonable statement - I think if you grew your own or picked stuff then that would be ok.

 nufkin 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

>  a way to take the rough edges off reality.

Or wondrously enhance it

>  I really don't understand why anyone takes drugs.

In many cases, probably the same reason you like that occasional glass of wine

 Maggot 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Nearly 30 years of unfiltered rollies, then cold turkey and two weeks of Hell.

You're a better man than me then!

 Tom Walkington 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

I have nothing against taking a pill if it helps you,for instance I have started taking vit.D tablets this winter. I know there needs to be a considered approach to each drug(evidence based),but people I knew who drank alcohol /smoked were not taking this approach,they simply enjoyed the 'high'. I am doubtful that most people who take other recreational drugs are much different.

1
OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> Your experience of climbing related hospitalisations seems quite dramatic to me. In my own experience of almost 50 years walking, caving and climbing (all three in parallel for several decades) I can barely recall any either in my group or around me. Count them on the fingers of one hand.

A complete aside, but in twelve years of climbing I've been taken by ambulance to A&E with a badly sprained ankle, and I've broken a leg into three pieces. Neither direct results of climbing, but both sustained in the pursuit of vertical fun. One girl in a club I was affiliated to almost died after falling from the first bolt of an easy sport route, smashing her knee in and subsequently having a bad reaction to morphine. One very capable mate came within a foot or two of a 20-odd metre groundfall on his first E1. In ten years of playing ice hockey I've had three concussions, one broken nose and countless minor but debilitating finger and hand injuries. I've had a trip to A&E at uni from overdrinking, and I was once found passed out in the snow on a uni ski trip after someone spiked my drink. An alumni in my uni club died on a trip I was on from choking on his vomit in his sleep, because he was an alcoholic.

I've yet to trouble the NHS for anything involving illegal substances, and I don't expect I ever will.

Post edited at 16:13
2
OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Walkington:

> people I knew who drank alcohol /smoked were not taking this approach,they simply enjoyed the 'high'.

For sure. That's not a healthy behaviour — but if they weren't getting high every day, what other harmful behaviour would they be doing instead? If you haven't got anything better to do in your life than get drunk or high all the time, your problems are much bigger than getting drunk or high all  the time.

 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to nufkin:

> Or wondrously enhance it

If you're lucky?

> In many cases, probably the same reason you like that occasional glass of wine

Not really. It's just like a nice piece of cake or cup of tea - I like the taste and don't need it to deaden reality. In the unlikely event of Britain banning alcohol I'd not be at all bothered.

3
 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> A complete aside, but in ten years of climbing I've been taken by ambulance to A&E with a badly sprained ankle, and I've broken a leg into three pieces. Neither direct results of climbing, but both sustained in the pursuit of vertical fun. One girl in a club I was affiliated to almost died after falling from the first bolt of an easy sport route, smashing her knee in and subsequently having a bad reaction to morphine. One very capable mate came within a foot or two of a 20-odd metre groundfall on his first E1. In ten years of playing ice hockey I've had three concussions, one broken nose and countless minor but debilitating finger and hand injuries. I've had a trip to A&E at uni from overdrinking, and I was once found passed out in the snow on a uni ski trip after someone spiked my drink. An alumni in my uni club died on a trip I was on from choking on his vomit in his sleep, because he was an alcoholic.

> I've yet to trouble the NHS for anything involving illegal substances, and I don't expect I ever will.


Either I've led a charmed life or you're a disaster magnet?

2
 wintertree 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

>  Let me know as I really don't understand why anyone takes drugs.

I really want to experience LSD given the various descriptions I’ve read about it.  There’s a low probability of it seriously and permanently messing with my brain however, so I’m saving that idea till I don’t need the old noggin any more, probably when I’m sat in a retirement home watching the birds aged ninety something.  Perhaps by then, there’ll be a derivative and/or protocol to avoid messing the occasional person up...

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

I think I should be banned from climbing in France, perhaps. Hockey injuries are par for the course, but hospitalisations are commonplace and they're often ugly injuries. Going leg-first (or head-first) into the boards at speed is often going to end poorly.

Edit: I say commonplace; that's an exaggeration. But playing a high-speed collision sport with miniature offensive weapons in everyone's hands is always going to reliably generate health problems for people.

Post edited at 16:34
 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> >  Let me know as I really don't understand why anyone takes drugs.

> I really want to experience LSD given the various descriptions I’ve read about it.

As a kid my parents took me to see Yellow Submarine. I just thought the whole thing was a total bore. Maybe that's why I don't feel drawn to drugs. It just looks so tedious.

1
Removed User 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> I’ve tried to live my life by two rules: have fun, and don’t harm others in doing so.

The indirect harm is the impossibility here.  It's not possible to live without causing some degree of detriment to others at some level - simply because you consume resources.

Travel?  Climate.

Substances (inc. alcohol, drugs, smoking, chocolate)?  Loading onto a finite health system.

etc.

Not doing direct harm to others is a very low bar.

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

What's really disappointing is that a thread on mountain inspiration has generated two replies and a third of the views of an off-topic discussion on recreational drugs with 100 replies.

Come on, hands up, who actually likes climbing here?

 Maggot 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> Come on, hands up, who actually likes climbing here?

>

Me! Trouble is I was shit at it so gave up.  Aye, those long gone bimbling days

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> Come on, hands up, who actually likes climbing here?

It's alright. I prefer getting tw*tted though.

 Timmd 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

I've absorbed from my family 'Enjoy yourself, try and make a positive contribution, and cause as little hurt and harm as possible (regarding people's feelings, and potential harm through political/lifestyle choices).'

I'm pro legalisation, but I guess, given the current illegality of drugs, given that buying them supports organised crime, and a 'trap' which young people can become drawn into, taking drugs wouldn't be an ethical thing to do, for instance when it's something like cocaine which has a trail of murder and damaged lives bringing it from South America to the UK, even if they should be legal to remove the crime element, that there's misery currently involved in their production and movement around the world makes it hard to see taking them as an ethically sound choice, in my humble opinion. Home grown weed, or something else without suffering involved in getting it to the user is arguably fine, though. 

Those three rules might be interpreted differently by different people, but they don't seem bad rules to try and live by...

Post edited at 17:08
OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Maggot:

Who cares? Who needs to be good at anything as long as they're enjoying it? I'm a shit climber, but I'm well okay with that because it still takes me to amazing places and exposes me to overwhelmingly positive and empowering experiences.

In reply to Lankyman:

> Either I've led a charmed life or you're a disaster magnet?

My mate once drove me in his van to the North Face Carpark...6 hrs

We parked up and had a sleep.

In the morning he couldn't move his foot, excruciating pain,thought he'd broken a bone!

Had to take him to Fort William Hospital...full  x-ray and investigation.

Final result...Youngest case of Gout they had ever seen...😅

 Blue Straggler 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

>

> Come on, hands up, who actually likes climbing here?

A fairer question would be "who has anything they really feel they need to say about climbing, here?"

 Timmd 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> It's alright. I prefer getting tw*tted though.

For me, being out in the Peak or elsewhere outdoors on 'cool days' (the right mixture of energy, weather, mood and location) will always beat any nice experiences I had getting intoxicated. They were pretty cool, but the best of outdoor days can give me a sense of 'There's no place I'd rather be, this is amazing'. I once had a thought, that in the way childhood is an experience of being fully wrapped up in the moment, that's what we seek via different routes in adulthood, through drugs or adrenaline sports, or what have you. The search for those kinds of moments gives me something to be absorbed in, and they're the best parts of being outside.

There's probably no less an element of escapism like there can be in taking drugs or getting drunk, of course, but it can give nice photos...

Post edited at 17:51
 Vince 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Agree with the principle in general.  But not sure using drugs is a good example because of the addictive nature of some recreational drugs.  Just look at the background of the current US opioid epidemic and the old opium trade in the Far East.

 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> Final result...Youngest case of Gout they had ever seen...😅

My God! Did they apply leeches to the afflicted parts?

 Lankyman 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Timmd:

> For me, being out in the Peak or elsewhere outdoors on 'cool days' (the right mixture of energy, weather, mood and location) will always beat any nice experiences I had getting intoxicated. They were pretty cool, but the best of outdoor days can give me a sense of 'There's no place I'd rather be, this is amazing'. I once had a thought, that in the way childhood is an experience of being fully wrapped up in the moment, that's what we seek via different routes in adulthood, through drugs or adrenaline sports, or what have you. The search for those kinds of moments gives me something to be absorbed in, and they're the best parts of being outside.

I think you're summing it up quite well in a way that chimes with my own thoughts. I had alcohol as a youth and the bad side of it (hangovers and subsequent ruination of a day) soon palled. Never saw the point of drugs when being outside and active was so fulfilling. It will be like that for me till I drop.

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Timmd:

I was joking.

The experience of a good day's climbing is far, far more rewarding than getting high. But it's a lot harder to achieve - I've found now I'm way past the part of my climbing career where I was improving and I had all the classic routes still to go at, it's really hard to get a fulfilling day's climbing, compared to say, my first couple of trips to Pembroke. Getting high on the other hand is easy - you can even do it in lockdown!

Post edited at 17:55
In reply to Lankyman:

> My God! Did they apply leeches to the afflicted parts?

Ha...that might have helped.

Some tablets and a bottle of water If I can remember.

One wasted trip...we don't talk about his gout.

OP tehmarks 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Timmd:

> For me, being out in the Peak or elsewhere outdoors on 'cool days' (the right mixture of energy, weather, mood and location) will always beat any nice experiences I had getting intoxicated.

I couldn't agree more.

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> I really want to experience LSD given the various descriptions I’ve read about it.  There’s a low probability of it seriously and permanently messing with my brain however, so I’m saving that idea till I don’t need the old noggin any more, probably when I’m sat in a retirement home watching the birds aged ninety something.  Perhaps by then, there’ll be a derivative and/or protocol to avoid messing the occasional person up...

Look at the research, the risk of having a bad time is real, but the risk of permanent harm is vanishingly close to zero. If you were susceptible to psychotic breaks, you'd know by now. 

But if you're interested in psychedelics I wouldn't go for acid, personally. It lasts far too long and is annoying for the final few hours ime. 

 wintertree 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If you were susceptible to psychotic breaks, you'd know by now. 

I think with the amount of general stress and pressure in life including small children, now is not the time to risk it.  One distant day...

> But if you're interested in psychedelics I wouldn't go for acid, personally. It lasts far too long and is annoying for the final few hours ime.

It's the synesthesia aspect that fascinates me - something not replicated by watching Yellow Submarine...    I have high hopes for transcranial magnetic stimulation eventually being able to do more than just shut down parts of a victim, er volunteers, brain.  They don't seem to suffer any long term consequences...

 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> It's the synesthesia aspect that fascinates me - something not replicated by watching Yellow Submarine...    I have high hopes for transcranial magnetic stimulation eventually being able to do more than just shut down parts of a victim, er volunteers, brain.  They don't seem to suffer any long term consequences...

They had one of those machines where I studied optometry and vision science. I really wanted a go - so fascinating. I'm guessing it's stuff like shut down MT and see the world in a series of stills. Brilliant!

 marsbar 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Walkington:

I take a class B drug  upto 3 times every day to improve my focus and therefore my wellbeing.  

If you think I am deluded feel free to tell the Professor who diagnosed me and the GP who prescribes it.  

We are still at the stage where we can  improve understanding how the brain works and how we can improve things for people who are neurodiverse and people who suffer with depression and other mental health issues. 

Small doses of certain illegal substances maybe helpful for some mental health issues.

Post edited at 19:22
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> I have high hopes for transcranial magnetic stimulation eventually being able to do more than just shut down parts of a victim, er volunteers, brain.  They don't seem to suffer any long term consequences...

I wouldn't get your hopes up for drug-free tripping. The magic of the psychedelics happens at the 5ht-2a receptors, pretty tricky little things to target from a hat on the outside of your head. The advantage of TMS tripping would be being able to stop it at the flick of a switch. That would not outweigh the huge advantage of being able to do it comfortably wherever you like, undisturbed by anyone, in sympathetic company or in your own front room with Beethoven quartets animated by Smalin on the telly (lights off of course). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ_e_WkjQuM&ab_channel=smalin

I'm not trying to give you ideas, obviously.

In reply to Lankyman:

Ignoring the fact that you seem to be equating drug taking with drug addiction, you’ve taken one example out of many there, I guess because it suits your point. You’ve not addressed the point I was making about people’s right to make unwise decisions. 

How is not using suncream and risking skin cancer a benefit to society? How is risking falling off a ladder because you didn’t get someone to hold it for you a benefit to society? How is not reading the manual of that new chainsaw a benefit to society? Would you withdraw medical care in these situations too? 

We all make poor decisions from time to time, I don’t believe for one second that you are any different in that regard to the rest of the human race. 

The saddest aspect with regard to problematic drug and alcohol use (not drug use in the wider sense or recreational use) is that generally is that it is a sign that someone’s reality is too shit to bear. The drug use is a symptom, not the cause. If you really want to do something about it, don’t punish someone and refuse them help. Create a society in which they can feel safe, supported, connected, and productive. That will go immeasurably further towards resolving the problems we see. 

1
 Jon Stewart 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> If you really want to do something about it, don’t punish someone and refuse them help. Create a society in which they can feel safe, supported, connected, and productive. That will go immeasurably further towards resolving the problems we see. 

Nah. Just be a judgemental bell end. Requires a lot less thought.

2
In reply to Jon Stewart:

With the added bonus of a nice warm afterglow of misplaced moral superiority. 

1
 Lankyman 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> Ignoring the fact that you seem to be equating drug taking with drug addiction, you’ve taken one example out of many there, I guess because it suits your point. You’ve not addressed the point I was making about people’s right to make unwise decisions. 

> How is not using suncream and risking skin cancer a benefit to society? How is risking falling off a ladder because you didn’t get someone to hold it for you a benefit to society? How is not reading the manual of that new chainsaw a benefit to society? Would you withdraw medical care in these situations too? 

> We all make poor decisions from time to time, I don’t believe for one second that you are any different in that regard to the rest of the human race. 

> The saddest aspect with regard to problematic drug and alcohol use (not drug use in the wider sense or recreational use) is that generally is that it is a sign that someone’s reality is too shit to bear. The drug use is a symptom, not the cause. If you really want to do something about it, don’t punish someone and refuse them help. Create a society in which they can feel safe, supported, connected, and productive. That will go immeasurably further towards resolving the problems we see. 


There you go again - whoosh! Right over your head. Accidents happen. Anyone can have them. But when you knowingly set out using substances that society has judged unwise then you shouldn't expect society to bail you. All your and others sophisticated justification is purely for your own purpose. You can convince yourself all you like about drug A, B and C being fine for you and how you know what it does to you but society has decided that there are risks in taking drugs and you don't like it. Stop whingeing. As I said earlier, spot is legal, drugs aren't and there are excellent reasons for this. Write to your MP if you can be bothered and get this changed?

6
 Jon Stewart 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

The argument is that prohibition causes much much more harm than good. And it is supported by an enormous weight of evidence.

"Society has decided" on the basis of incorrect information, that's why society should change its mind. It managed that on homosexuality. 

You're making a moral argument about what you think people *should* do, without any regard for what people *will* do, whether you moralise or not. 

Post edited at 10:19
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> Taking drugs is breaking both of your own rules.

Talk about a generalisation. You mean like having a small sherry at Xmas?

 Andrew Wells 08 Feb 2021

The idea that doing some MDMA at a party is somehow worse than drinking beer at a party is ridiculous.

You might say "well the supply chain is worse" and I'd debate that. Depends what beer you're drinking. If its Tiger Beer the profits could be going to such luminaries as; the Armed Forces Myanmar, big fans of genocide those boys.

Generally not, of course (my point being that a legal supply chain can be pretty brutally awful), but even then, we aren't going to get less people doing drugs. More people take drugs in this country than ever before and they've never been more illegal. Making drugs illegal and social disapproval has done f*ck all to stop people caning the MD and you know why? Cos people like it, and for good reason.

 WaterMonkey 08 Feb 2021
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> Talk about a generalisation. You mean like having a small sherry at Xmas?

Cool story bro

2
OP tehmarks 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> But when you knowingly set out using substances that society has judged unwise then you shouldn't expect society to bail you.

The thing that you don't seem to be understanding is that 'society' hasn't judged them unwise on any factual evidence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/...

Take a look and explain to me, in a factual and evidence-based manner, why alcohol and tobacco are legal but cause significant harm, and at the other end of the list a fungus that grows freely and unencouraged in fields across the country, and causes virtually no harm to anyone, is a class A drug.

Our current system of prohibition actually stem from America going full-mental on drugs in the 70s and thereafter, for their own unwise reasons. Unfortunately we adopted their approach under pressure despite having really quite a good, pragmatic approach to drugs and to addiction problems, and no societal drugs problem to speak of. The results speak for themselves.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60700-X/...

If you want to argue about things, you may want to acquaint yourself with the facts first. I have all the time in the world for people who can discuss things in a rational and logical manner — but I really don't have time for people who just shout loudly about their individual prejudices and opinions, divorced from evidence and from any logical reasoning.

Post edited at 11:16
 petemeads 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Stuart Williams:

I can see a benefit to society of not using sunscreen automatically - the vitamin D manufactured by sunshine directly on skin seems to be protective from Covid to a degree whereas the risk of skin cancer is pretty small if a tan has been acquired by proper graduated exposure to decent sunshine (starting at 10-15 minutes a day and building gradually) - I used no suncream in the UK last year, and take supplementary vit D tablets in the winter months. I have had a basal cell carcinoma removed in the past when I was less cautious about getting tanned gradually - do not get burned!

Nothing to do with this thread, really, other than trying to help others whilst having fun myself...

In reply to Lankyman:

Alcohol and tobacco fit into your argument of legal=good, illegal=bad how? Following your logic, since alcohol is legal it is presumably without significant risk and not a substance with all the characteristics of a class A drug? The argument you are making is absurdly simplistic and not even consistent with your own points up thread.

I’m not really sure what the “excellent reasons” you have are. Apart from false understandings about risks and consequences and a lack of understanding that problematic drug use has little to do with the substance itself and much to do with adverse social factors.

My “sophisticated justifications” (I always thought I was sophisticated, thanks) have nothing to do with what drugs do to me, I don’t take drugs. I do however think that the argument that the law is somehow beyond reproach or that legality=morality is totally moronic. You certainly don’t have to look very hard to find examples of laws that failed that test. Segregation? “Society has decided, stop whinging”. Homosexuality illegal? “Society has decided, stop whinging”. But I’ll certainly remember that line next time you get on your high horse about mask exemptions in the covid laws. 

Post edited at 11:28
 Stichtplate 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> There you go again - whoosh! Right over your head. Accidents happen. Anyone can have them. But when you knowingly set out using substances that society has judged unwise then you shouldn't expect society to bail you.

Like cake, beer and fags? We are all well aware of the dangers but people like them. Some people have so little they value in their lives that smoking, drinking and stuffing their faces is all they've got...likewise street drugs. Society has judged hammering all these things is unwise but we'll bail people out anyway cos, you know, empathy and a basic human desire to help others.

You disagree with this. Maybe you should write to your MP and stop whingeing? I'm sure someone has suggested that somewhere?

>All your and others sophisticated justification is purely for your own purpose. You can convince yourself all you like about drug A, B and C being fine for you and how you know what it does to you but society has decided that there are risks in taking drugs and you don't like it.

Yep, not a fan of prohibition and it's not just me. There's an awful lot of expert opinion and historical examples that evidence prohibition as a terrible option. It's pretty obvious, I mean we've tried it for well over a century and we still have a drugs problem, only now the problem's been compounded by the societal impacts of the huge criminal networks its built.

>Stop whingeing. As I said earlier, spot is legal, drugs aren't and there are excellent reasons for this. Write to your MP if you can be bothered and get this changed?

You're obviously very passionate on the issue as well as totally convinced that you're right, but perhaps you should question yourself on this, after all how much store would you put in the arguments of someone passionately against ice climbing if they were coming from a position of never having been ice climbing and being actively afraid of heights?

 Lankyman 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Stichtplate and anyone else:

The law is as it is and I agree with it for health and societal reasons. If you wish to advocate for more drugs which have no benefit for society that's your right. Good luck but society doesn't seem to want this otherwise Parliament would have opened those gates long ago. I don't need to argue for anything - the current status quo is fine by me.As a kid I deduced that drugs were of no benefit whether habitual or not. Those advocating for their drug of choice it's up to you to make the running. Is there nothing else though that you can think of to spend valuable time on let alone hard cash? If it's not a habit, give it up and do something more positive than being off your head.

4
 Jon Stewart 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> The law is as it is and I agree with it for health and societal reasons.

You actively want avoidable health and social problems?

> Good luck but society doesn't seem to want this otherwise Parliament would have opened those gates long ago. 

We'll see what happens in a generation or two. The cat is out of the bag with psychedelics, the myths have all been debunked, loads of places have decriminalised cannabis and other drugs so there's data pouring in about the risks/benefits. I'm afraid your argument isn't going to hold out in public opinion against science and reason for much longer. It's on shaky ground and the cracks are already visible. 

 Stichtplate 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> The law is as it is and I agree with it for health and societal reasons. If you wish to advocate for more drugs which have no benefit for society that's your right.

No one on this thread has advocated for more drugs, they've advocated for an end to prohibition on health and societal welfare grounds. Most leisure activities have no obvious tangible benefit for society. I see you're into your caving, so go ahead, what's the benefit to society?

Now you've made it plain that you have zero interest in getting tw*tted. Fair enough. But the entire recorded history of humanity is littered with people getting shit faced for fun so it's blindingly obvious that its a pretty basic human drive.

As to the societal benefits of intoxication, just off the top of my head and from extensive personal experience: peer bonding, social lubricant, de-stressing, mating and procreation, social cohesion through shared ritual and most importantly, It's Fun.

>Good luck but society doesn't seem to want this otherwise Parliament would have opened those gates long ago.

Law has always trailed societal opinion. Just because Parliament currently agrees with you doesn't mean everyone else does, neither does it mean it's correct.

>I don't need to argue for anything - the current status quo is fine by me.

Odd that you've spent so much time doing so then.

>As a kid I deduced that drugs were of no benefit whether habitual or not.

You deduced they were of no benefit to you. Others made other choices and decided they were of benefit.

Personally, I've always found opinions based on experience far out weighs opinions based on no experience.

>Those advocating for their drug of choice it's up to you to make the running. Is there nothing else though that you can think of to spend valuable time on let alone hard cash? If it's not a habit, give it up and do something more positive than being off your head.

You misunderstand. I'm not advocating for drug use, I'm advocating against prohibition. I'm saying that prohibition has caused more harm to the health and welfare of society and the individual than the drugs themselves.

2
 Lankyman 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

OK. Last word (of mine). I won't pick up on each of your points but you and several others in the UKC pro-drug/legalization lobby are intelligent enough to argue your corner. Keep doing it but don't expect results any time soon. Whatever your or my opinion on the matter is the facts are that you are in a minority. By all means campaign for decriminalisation, set your stall out for the benefits as you see them to the wider public, rather than the very narrow echo chamber of UKC. Where I work we often have stalls in the foyer raising funds and/or awareness for causes that are a benefit/good for society. Things like Marie Curie, Salvation Army, Bay Rescue. I've yet to see one in support of legalization for drugs. I think I know why and I'd hazard that most people would too.

2
 Stichtplate 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> OK. Last word (of mine). I won't pick up on each of your points

When people refuse to address the points of discussion, despite acres of text in reply, it's most often because they can't refute those points with any rational argument.

 >Whatever your or my opinion on the matter is the facts are that you are in a minority. By all means campaign for decriminalisation, set your stall out for the benefits as you see them to the wider public, rather than the very narrow echo chamber of UKC.

It seems to have entirely passed you by that the last decade has seen a massive shift towards decriminalisation across swathes of the Western World.

>Where I work we often have stalls in the foyer raising funds and/or awareness for causes that are a benefit/good for society. Things like Marie Curie, Salvation Army, Bay Rescue.

Where I work I'm often knee deep in dealing with the effects of addiction and prohibition rather than just walking past a stall in the lobby. Perhaps this goes some way to explaining our different perceptions of the issue.

>I've yet to see one in support of legalization for drugs. I think I know why and I'd hazard that most people would too.

Yep, you don't generally get a lot of charities focussed on repealing laws. It's largely a question of optics and the fact that it's easier to dig deep for a kid with cancer than a lobby group with an agenda.

Post edited at 14:12
1
 Andrew Wells 08 Feb 2021

Just because there aren't leaflets for something in the front of your workplace doesn't mean it is a bad idea, a painfully obvious statement and yet here we are.

1
 Jon Stewart 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> Where I work we often have stalls in the foyer raising funds and/or awareness for causes that are a benefit/good for society. Things like Marie Curie, Salvation Army, Bay Rescue. I've yet to see one in support of legalization for drugs. I think I know why and I'd hazard that most people would too.

Because they're charities, not political campaigns? 

1
OP tehmarks 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> The law is as it is and I agree with it for health and societal reasons.

Just to expand this so the full implications aren't lost on anyone:

  • You agree with the law for the health reasons that research into drugs that show great promise for treating a wide range of mental disorders should be prevented.
  • You agree with the law for the health reasons that young people deserve to die for taking toxic substances that aren't what they planned to take, because shady criminals often don't give a shit about quality or the wellbeing of their customers and do such things as cut MDMA (about as dangerous as paracetamol) with PMA (incredibly toxic).
  • You agree with the law for the societal reasons that drugs which have effects such as feeling deep connection and empathy with one's friends, peers and environment are bad, but a drug that leads to violence, disorder, avoidable deaths and murders the country over every Friday night, and that is a massive and disproportionate drain on police resources in every city in the country, every weekend, is perfectly okay.
  • You agree with the law for the societal reasons that people suffering from addiction should be criminalised and forced through the justice system instead of being offered medical care for what medicine recognises as a genuine medical disorder.
  • You agree with the law that leads to impoverished kids and adults the world over being taken advantage of and forced into a life of crime because people will always want to take drugs whether they're illegal or not. By extension, you support the massive burden this places on society, you support gang murders of teenagers in London, and you support the funnelling of money into serious crime instead of into the Treasury for the benefit of society.

That's the only conclusion that I can reach because that is the factual expansion of your opinion.

> society doesn't seem to want this otherwise Parliament would have opened those gates long ago.

The law won't change because huge numbers of people the country over hold these absurd and unjustifiable prejudices.

> Is there nothing else though that you can think of to spend valuable time on let alone hard cash?

Why on Earth do you care what others choose to spend their time or their money on? It goes back to the very original point of the thread: if someone is having fun and not causing harm to themselves or to others in doing so, why does it actually matter to you? What effect do you think it has on your life if your neighbour is tripping on acid?

> If it's not a habit, give it up and do something more positive than being off your head.

Do you actually have the first clue what the effects of some of the drugs you're arguing against actually have? It's like saying 'give up climbing and go and do something more positive like knitting'. It doesn't even pretend to make sense.

Your position is rationally unjustifiable.

Post edited at 15:17
1
In reply to Stichtplate:

> As to the societal benefits of intoxication, just off the top of my head and from extensive personal experience: peer bonding, social lubricant, de-stressing, mating and procreation, social cohesion through shared ritual and most importantly, It's Fun.

Contributions to music literature have got to be on that list too. There’s a vast list of music, poetry and novels that had a helping hand from mind altering substances. And that extends far beyond just the obvious suspects.

The role of substances in various spiritual settings probably deserves a mention too, along with medicinal uses. 

In reply to Lankyman:

> Is there nothing else though that you can think of to spend valuable time on let alone hard cash? If it's not a habit, give it up and do something more positive than being off your head.

You said yourself you like a glass of wine. If you want to moralise about others using mind altering substances, it would carry more weight if you first stopped using mind altering substances yourself. If, as you said before, you are actually curious as to why people use substances, some reflection on your own motivations to do so would be a good place to start. Your list of reasons is likely to be indistinguishable from that of any other recreational drug user.

Post edited at 16:01
 Timmd 08 Feb 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> > If you were susceptible to psychotic breaks, you'd know by now. 

> I think with the amount of general stress and pressure in life including small children, now is not the time to risk it.  One distant day...

Having heard things on R4, people's accounts of dealing with their parents developing dementia, and that kind of thing, it almost strikes me that in a sense, as a parent one's health isn't only one's own, that parents almost need to keep well for their children's happiness too.

Even as adults, me and my brothers pester  my Dad into keeping active, which reminds me that I need to ring him, last time we spoke he'd been more active than I'd been, which is heartening, we seem to nudge one another into doing better.

Post edited at 17:13
In reply to tehmarks:

> I digress. I’m curious to hear what the fundamental principles of everyone else are. Whether others have a ‘guiding light’, a test like mine that can be applied to any situation to guide one to a good or justifiable or fair outcome and challenge one's own behaviour or decisions when they don't conform?

I'm surprised your first post got all the dislikes, but I suppose it was the drugs, even some of the full-on lefty contingent must have a few not-so-liberal hang-ups. Shame on you! Personally I think people should be free to take whatever, until it comes to impacting on the NHS, but there again, judging by the state of some of the specimens I used to see waddling down the aisles in Tesco then doughnuts and pies probably do more damage and there's no chance of making those illegal.

So, going back to the main point, then the first do no harm thing is spot on in my view, obviously it is a lot more nuanced than that if you dig into it as others have said, but as a general guide in directly dealing with others it is fine. I wouldn't have included the having fun bit, as personally I would prioritise earning a living and keeping a roof over my head. But I'm middle aged and boring. I would add that I would always try and help out others I was directly in contact with if they were in imminent danger. At one time I thought that was a universal human impulse, sadly it appears not. I recall coming across a serious car accident years ago, the type where you expect to see detached body parts. A queue of cars stopped, but only two chaps trying to help. I was at the back of the queue and although the common sense part of me said to turn around and take a detour, I felt an obligation to help, which I did. What stayed with me after that is the people in their cars with their windows up, not the blood. I expect many of those lovely individuals were clapping the NHS on Thursday nights last year and slagging off the "heartless" Tories on their facebook accounts. 

OP tehmarks 10 Feb 2021
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

> I wouldn't have included the having fun bit, as personally I would prioritise earning a living and keeping a roof over my head.

My only major goal in life is to enjoy it while I'm living, however that is achieved. But in fairness, I've managed to create myself a niche career where I have both a huge amount of time off and a good amount of income to afford to not be bored in that time. And I genuinely love what I do (most days) and the ever-changing people that I do it with, so I also have fun each and every time I go to work. But if I didn't do what I do (and at the moment I don't), I'd prefer to work in a job that I truly enjoy even if it only just about covers my outgoings than in a lucrative career that I hated. Thankfully my outgoings are minimal, so that's not a difficult target to achieve. And I don't think I could ever go back to having a full-time job for someone else; in comparison to my freedom and working conditions as a freelancer, it appears to me that the 'employed' world is generally awful and full of corporate advantage-taking, with a horrendous work-life balance and unfair remuneration for it.

The fun aspect is really on a micro level though: I think there is fun to be had in daily life situations if you look hard enough for it. It doesn't need to be 'big fun' like going on a climbing trip, or out to dinner, or on holiday. In the same way, I think there are positives to find in each and every day even if on some days it can be really hard work finding them.

> I would add that I would always try and help out others I was directly in contact with if they were in imminent danger. At one time I thought that was a universal human impulse, sadly it appears not.

That is sad and depressing. I can't help but remember a time on my way to work when living in London. My local station was closed as some poor person had jumped or fallen in front of a train, and the number of people giving the station attendant grief was unbelievable. That really hit me: I couldn't believe just how any people were so selfish and wrapped up in their own world that they couldn't appreciate that someone had probably just lost their life 50' away from them, that in all probability they'd probably been driven to  doing it deliberately, and that their tardiness for work in comparison was utterly irrelevant. A complete lack of compassion and empathy.

Post edited at 11:19
 Rob Exile Ward 10 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

One of my favourite memories was getting caught on the A5 in a real winter storm, which brought all the traffic grinding to a halt. Being equipped for winter climbing, it seemed the right thing to do - and fun - to get out and help cars get on their way, and a lot of people joined in with a will, making it quite a social occasion. UNTIL we came to a posh Jaguar, waiting its turn, full of fully equipped climbers who were just sitting there, running the engine and playing cards. When we suggested they might choose to help, their response was classic: 'we thought you were from the Council.' As though a) the Council could have got there under the conditions, past all the blocked traffic, and b) what difference would it have made anyway, why couldn't they get out and help?

In reply to tehmarks:

> My only major goal in life is to enjoy it while I'm living, however that is achieved. But in fairness, I've managed to create myself a niche career where I have both a huge amount of time off and a good amount of income to afford to not be bored in that time. And I genuinely love what I do (most days) and the ever-changing people that I do it with, so I also have fun each and every time I go to work. But if I didn't do what I do (and at the moment I don't), I'd prefer to work in a job that I truly enjoy...

That's interesting as I often wonder how many people actually really enjoy the way they make a living. Personally I spent most of my twenties and thirties working very long hours in poor conditions with not-very-nice people who were in some cases most definitely sociopaths. But the pay was good as a freelance. Now I work the minimum amount of time I need to for people who are generally pleasant and even pay invoices on time. I enjoy the micro-level fun you describe -- reading, daily walk through the country lanes, Netflix with a cup of tea and chocolate bar etc.-- but still I can't shake completely the habit of putting earnings and security first to an unreasonable extent, even if I prioritise much more the enjoyment of living. Hence my reply in the other post. As for full time employment working for someone else, I know what you mean.

OP tehmarks 10 Feb 2021
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

It’s a love-hate relationship in fairness. I hate it when it’s the end of November and I haven’t stopped since the beginning of September, I hate it when the project manager slyly under-crews the gig or promises the client something that really needs three more people and half a truck more kit to achieve (but needs achieving regardless), and I really hate it when people forget that we aren’t automatons and really do need both lunch and time in which we can eat it. But I love the people I work with, I love that I get paid to go to very interesting places and see really unique things, and I love working in an environment with real and non-negotiable deadlines and pressures to make very unlikely things happen. And I’m incredibly privileged to only work about 200 days a year but earn not far off twice the average UK salary of someone probably working 330+ days a year. It’s just about worth the years of living on vapours to get there…

I’ve almost left a few times — to join the Army in 2018, and more recently I’ve considered a career in law. But ultimately I think that time is the most valuable commodity we have, and I’d be giving away a lot of my time to do anything else while probably also earning less. And I’m sure the grass isn’t actually any greener on the other side.

I’m very lucky, I think.

 nufkin 10 Feb 2021
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

>  a universal human impulse

I vaguely recall seeing something academic about this, though possibly I'm imagining it, but I think the presence of other people tends to depress the natural impulse. Some is possibly just callous laziness ('one of these other people will do something'), but it's also a result of worrying about being judged, and even just drawing attention to oneself. It isn't very logical maybe, and nothing to encourage, but the urge to be part of the crowd is quite strong, and I think needs quite a lot of confidence to overcome - particularly in out-of-the-ordinary situations. 
Also, in towns and cities at least, there are established systems to take care of this sort of thing, which probably encourages a certain amount of complacency - 'better to let the professionals deal with it'. I expect a lot of people sitting in those cars in the situation described would have willingly helped if asked - or instructed - but weren't really sure what to do otherwise, or even if they were 'allowed' to help

In reply to nufkin:

> Also, in towns and cities at least, there are established systems to take care of this sort of thing, which probably encourages a certain amount of complacency - 'better to let the professionals deal with it'. I expect a lot of people sitting in those cars in the situation described would have willingly helped if asked - or instructed - but weren't really sure what to do otherwise, or even if they were 'allowed' to help

The psychology of it is interesting, but unfortunately the bottom line is that most of the population aren't a lot of help in any situation out of the ordinary unless they are directed to act like you've said. Even the two chaps who were trying to help in the scenario I described above had no idea what they were doing; they hadn't assessed the state of the trapped occupants and were about to try to do something that would have possibly killed one of them.  Anyway, apologies to tehmarks if I go off topic, but this has been on my mind for a while. I remember another situation years back, where I came up behind several cars stopped in front a fallen tree branch. Each side of the obstruction several were manoeuvring to turn around, others just waiting. I got out of my car just as another chap did the other side of the fallen branch. We both walked towards it grabbed the same section and pulled it out of the way so there was enough room to pass -- it was so obvious that we both did it simultaneously without a word. I wonder if in addition to the psychology you described that employers and the government have infantilised a huge swathe of the population. I was thinking of perhaps how these situations I recounted, or similar, would have played out in say a country where everyone does military service like Israel or, on the other hand, a country where people can't rely on the state apparatus for help like Somalia. On a more positive note I was at the scene of a climbing accident years ago, and that did turn out a lot better, but with trad climbers you're dealing with a subset of the population who are more hands-on and proactive, so not really surprising.

OP tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

> Anyway, apologies to tehmarks if I go off topic...

Not at all; I'm not sure it was ever on-topic to begin with!

 hokkyokusei 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

My guiding personal principle is simply "Don't be a dick".

 Ridge 11 Feb 2021
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

> I wonder if in addition to the psychology you described that employers and the government have infantilised a huge swathe of the population.

Again a bit of a hijack of the OP, but I think you're right. Although not a common occurrence, I've been engaged in converstion either out on a fell run, running with the dog on a canicross harness or getting out of lake after a swim with”Do you need to go on a training course to do that?”

Don't get me started on “Have you started the pointless in-house 'Diploma' course for the job you've been doing for the last 10 years yet?”

OP tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Ridge:

> ”Do you need to go on a training course to do that?”

That's the harmless manifestation of that. The 'you need to do a course to do that!' is infinitely worse.

 Duncan Bourne 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

My guiding principle in life is be kind where you can. The logic behind this is that I want to live in a world where we look after one another. This is obviously a pipe dream and such a utopia is always slipping from our reach but still as Tescos say every little helps.

Being kind however does not preclude arguing or defending others against those who would erode such principles.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...