OFF: drugs

[Doug Pearson]

Praise to Jah for "OFF".

On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:59:34 GMT, M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK> wrote:
>I've seen a study of personality types versus drug usage. The most
>interesting result was that people who got addicted to drugs correlated
>much more in type with the people who said they'd never touch drugs than
>with the folks who used drugs without any addictive pattern. Tentative
>concusions were that people who firmly abstained might have some insight
>that they were more likely to become addictive users than occasional
>users (as always, more research needed but not funded).

There are definitely some personalities that are more "addictive" than
others.  Like I said in a previous message, back in the 80s I knew a number
of people who screwed themselves up REAL bad with cocaine addictions
(reason why I don't wanna touch the stuff), but I also knew plenty of folks
who'd paint their nose white every weekend until 4AM sunday and were
completely functional and non-addicted otherwise.

My belief is definitely that drugs *DO NOT* change peoples' personalities.
They may heighten certain personality characteristics that already exist
(laziness/apathy in pot smokers, locquaciousness in coke-heads/speedfreaks,
mental instability in users of LSD or other psychedelics, etc.), but they
don't create anything that was never there to begin with.  I can think of
at least one acquaintence with damn near a 2-pack-a-day cannabis habit
who's one of the most un-mellow people I've ever known (although much of
his taste in music is what you might expect from someone with that kind of
habit).  If anything, people tend to seek out (and use) the drug(s) that
best represent their existing personality ...

That being said, it's probably a very very good idea for anyone with a
record of mental instability to avoid LSD and other psychedelics.
Musicians like Syd Barret, Skip Spence, and Brian Wilson clearly lost it
after too much psychedelic usage (and Wilson had definitely been subject to
fits of depression and anxiety after having been abused as a child).
Wheras, say, Jerry Garcia probably did far more acid than those three
combined, but never lost his mind (and while I'm ranting, I'll mention that
even though the guy was a Heroin addict for the last 20 years of his life,
it was his DIET [basically nothing but ice cream, although that *is* one
common symptom of heroin addiction] that caused his diabetic coma and
probably eventually killed him; is it just me, or is the fact that "Cherry
Garcia" is still on the supermarket shelves in REALLY REALLY BAD taste?
Watch out folks!  Once cigarettes and alcohol are outlawed, sugary desserts
will be next!).  And what about those Hawkwind guys?  I believe that one or
two of them might have had a psychedelic experience at some point in time
... ;^)

>Arin Komins writes:
>> (also...does anyone have a good pointer for how long various drugs
>> stick around in one's system?  I've done drug tests for work
>> before, and don't want to sabotage potential jobs.....)
>
>LSD and opiates: hours or a few days at worst.

Cocaine, amphetamines, and most other psychedelics, too.

>Cannabis: six weeks to a couple of months detectable in urine - six
>months detectable in hair clippings (longer for longer hair).

THC (the active ingredient in marijuana/cannabis) is *very* fat-soluble and
sticks around for a while, but the 6-8+ weeks figure would be more for
chronic/habitual users.  A weekend partier would be likelier to have
"clean" urine after only a couple weeks.

>Dunno about the rest, but the alt.drugs FAQ on the
>web is considered a good source for questions like this.

(and probably a better place to discuss this, but it's too late now!)

>I'd also consider the morality of submitting to drug testing. While it
>may be convenient for any one person, it encourages this kind of
>intrusive authoritarianism every time anyone acquiesces.

I've thought about this quite a bit.  Just the *concept* of having to piss
in a jar as a job requirement sounds really messed up to me.  Fortunately,
I've never had to face that, but if it were the case, I'd be very tempted
to withdraw my job application on principle.  Of course, I'm sure that most
of my past and present employers have realized that if they implemented
mandatory testing and had to fire everyone who came out positive, they'd be
losing most of their competent employees ...

>Not that it'd matter if things get as weird as some yank authorities
>would like.

Yes, that's my Senator, Dianne Feinstein (damn! I should at least know how
to spell her name!), who wants to make it illegal to DISCUSS controlled
substances on the Internet.  I find it frightening that her republican
opponent is a much much better choice (although he won't be getting my vote
for reasons I don't want to go into).

Obviously under the influence of too much caffeine,

        -Doug
         ceres at sirius.com