Uppers

drivermaker said:
Hey Wayne...I don't know what you think, but based on the highlighted words and tone involved in this paragraph, my thinking is this sounds like one pissed off dude that ALLOWED someone ELSE to control his Dr. Spock emotions to send him off into another hissy fit. Whadda ya think? LOL

I kind of observed something like that also and tried to steer him back to his HAPPY POOL. LOL.

On a more interesting note, I got to play Efren in the one-pocket tournament on Saturday at HardTImes and although it was only a race to 2 and I went down in flames 2-0 it was still interesting. I drew first blood in the first game and then went for a tough bank that would have won me the first game but missed and he ran out. The second game he got ahead 7 balls to 0 but I struggled back and got to 5 balls before he made an Efren like bank to win it. It wasn't HAPPY POOL but it was still fun. On Sunday at HardTimes I beat several tough opponents including a pro to get 2 deep in the money which is pretty good but won't make me rich. Monday and Tuesday I won 9 ball tournaments against not quite as tough opposition but pocketed several hundred dollars. So not a bad week so far. Now a few days off to practice my banks (I got the banking with the Beard book). I'll be gearing up for the US Open 1 pocket in Vegas where I finished in the top 10 last year but I am much improved and hope to do better this year.

Wayne
 
LastTwo said:
OH MY GOD. WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THREAD. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WEED. TATE IS OBVIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO USE HARD DRUGS LIKE SPEED, COKE, HEROIN, ETC.

There is no illness that will make someone need speed, coke, heroin, or pcp.

I was responding to comments about who is a loser and who is not. "Speed" is frequently prescribed for ADD, narcolepsy and other issues. I don't know enough about heroin, cocain, or pcp to comment on whether there are illnesses that would require their use. I can say with some degree of confidence that there are certainly drugs regularly used in the medical profession that are hallucenigens, narcotics and stimulants. So it is a bit of a fallacy to claim that there are no equivalent drugs that are in use and abuse through the established medical community.

I find it truly weird that what is illegal today was not years ago and may not be in the future. As society changes so does it's views, tolerances, fears, and prohibitions.

The only thing "wrong" with using drugs is when the use affects other people negatively. When excess of any kind disrupts lives then it is not acceptable. If purchasing street drugs fuels violence then it's wrong. Perhaps making it forbidden fruit by making access hard is the real culprit.

I predict that if drugs were available for anyone to try for free that most people would try them, keep what is needed and discard the use of the rest. If people had a chance to get credible medical care without the pressure of the HMO's and the Pharmaceutical industry then they could and would be able to experiment and tweak their needs accordingly.

I see NO difference in the recreational use of cocain and getting drunk. Both are done to get high. One is "legal" while the other is not. Alcoholism probably destroys more people's lives than all the so-called hard drugs combined.

John
 
wayne said:
Whoa easy Jeff sounds like you may be getting upset by Last Two. Remember your quotes "The secret to happy pool is to Manage the shot."
"...every shot began to add to my happiness" "I built a happy pool shot from 1989 through 1997."

Now Last Two you should note that Jeff plays 8 ball and he plays "HAPPY POOL", he has spent 9 years building his "HAPPY POOL SHOT". I think you should take this into consideration and cut the guy some slack.

Wayne

I think you are right.
 
drivermaker said:
Hey Wayne...I don't know what you think, but based on the highlighted words and tone involved in this paragraph, my thinking is this sounds like one pissed off dude that ALLOWED someone ELSE to control his Dr. Spock emotions to send him off into another hissy fit. Whadda ya think? LOL

I love how he puts words in my mouth the entire thread and I make a little joke summarizing his posts and he goes nuts LOL
 
TATE said:
It's just such a bad personal choice, I really can't view it any other way. I certainly wouldn't value somebody's judgement, that's for sure.

Chris
It is known that a huge percentage of doctors take drugs without prescriptions. That's illegal. Do you trust them? Can you answer my question about the constitution? George Washington's doctor, I believe it was Dr. Benjamin Rush, told him that if a medical freedom amendment was not added to the constitution that the government would eventually control the practice of medicine and control the people in that way. Now there are 2 million people in jail in the United States, more than anywhere else in the world. Mostly poor people, in jail for not having a prescription, or not having a liscence to push drugs, like Phizer does. And the private prison industry, liscenced by the government, is huge.

Everyone does drugs, everyone eats. I would'nt take meth because results I see from people around me suck. Just as I wouldn't take antidepressants because two people I know very well told me that they made them want to kill people. Also there's the school shootings, where settlements have been made, and millions of dollars paid in out of court settlements with gag orders so no one can talk about their payoffs. But you can find out about these things if you pay enough attention.

So back to the constitution, what is your non-clouded opinion of Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and where is the mention of drugs? I am waiting for your valued opinion.

unknownpro
 
onepocketchump said:
I was responding to comments about who is a loser and who is not. "Speed" is frequently prescribed for ADD, narcolepsy and other issues. I don't know enough about heroin, cocain, or pcp to comment on whether there are illnesses that would require their use. I can say with some degree of confidence that there are certainly drugs regularly used in the medical profession that are hallucenigens, narcotics and stimulants. So it is a bit of a fallacy to claim that there are no equivalent drugs that are in use and abuse through the established medical community.

I find it truly weird that what is illegal today was not years ago and may not be in the future. As society changes so does it's views, tolerances, fears, and prohibitions.

The only thing "wrong" with using drugs is when the use affects other people negatively. When excess of any kind disrupts lives then it is not acceptable. If purchasing street drugs fuels violence then it's wrong. Perhaps making it forbidden fruit by making access hard is the real culprit.

I predict that if drugs were available for anyone to try for free that most people would try them, keep what is needed and discard the use of the rest. If people had a chance to get credible medical care without the pressure of the HMO's and the Pharmaceutical industry then they could and would be able to experiment and tweak their needs accordingly.

I see NO difference in the recreational use of cocain and getting drunk. Both are done to get high. One is "legal" while the other is not. Alcoholism probably destroys more people's lives than all the so-called hard drugs combined.

John

Sorry John I thought you were about to go off on a tangent like Superstar. I would be inclined to agree with you on the statistics of alcoholism, since alcohol is legal and everywhere you go. Two semesters ago in one of my addiction studies courses I had the opportunity to interview a former meth/coke addict, a former heroin addict, and a former alcoholic. It's really amazing how differently each drug affects the user's mind. With alcoholics violence is common, inhibitions are non-existent, and usually depression is involved. The meth addicts turn into paranoid individuals who begin to not even trust their family members and often they resort to criminal behavior like robbery and GTA to support their habit. Withdrawal from meth is more psychological than physical, although when burning out from meth the user becomes really tired and can sleep for two days straight, usually because they stayed up for two or three days straight on the drug. The meth high gives them energy and confidence, even a feeling of sexiness, and often for the meth user this later backfires as their appearance becomes distorted from lack of nutrition since meth strongly decreases your appetite. Teeth begin to rott, skin begins to wrinkle, and they become wiry and bony and look extremely unhealthy. Once the user has reached this stage they are so fargone into their addiction and need the high so much, they really don't care about their appearance anymore and "live" for the drug. Heroin addiction is similar in a way, because the heroin addicts likewise "live" for the high and would spent every last penny on heroin if that was required. For the heroin junkies, shooting up is more like an escape. An effect of the opiates, all problems seem easy to deal with and the world is a happy place when the high is at it's peak. As their bodies grow more tolerant to heroin after the initial peak, they have energy and can function normally but only for short periods, as withdrawal can set in only after a few hours and they get physically AND mentally sick. As the high wears off reality starts to set in, their bodies begin to ache, and if they go without heroin for too long, they get extreme aches and pains, fever, anxiety attacks, deep deep depression, it's absoloute misery, so they shoot up again. For both alcohol and heroin addiction, they use the drugs to push away all their problems temporarily, kind of like storing them in the attic. When the drug wears off, stuff starts to tumble out of the attic on top of them. As time goes by the attic gets overloaded and they go on a binge for days and usually this is when overdose occurs.

The difference between alcohol and heroin, is that alcohol kind of numbs your problems, while heroin basically puts you in another world. People can use alcohol occasionally and never become alcoholics, but with heroin they say the second or third time you use it, you are an addict and you won't be able to stop.

Moth addiction specialists set meth apart from most other drugs because meth is believed the hardest to overcome. Harder than cigarettes, alcoholism, even heroin. For regular users, the meth high becomes a norm. Imagine a scale numbered 1-10. Lets say that their normal feeling while high on meth is an 8. When they start to come down from the drug, they drop to a 2. They have been on number 8 for so long that 2 (which is sobriety) seems unbearable. If they manage to stay off the drug, as time goes by the norm of 2 gradually increases to 3, 4, 5, 6, then 7, but sobriety never reaches 8. They never forget how good being an 8 felt, and the thought of the drug is almost always in the back of their minds. This is what really sets meth addiction apart from most other drugs. Heroin is similar in this sense, but the only difference is that there are medications that can alleviate heroin withdrawal symptoms to an extent to make it maneagable (no, I'm not talking about methadone, which IS a narcotic).

The problem with occasional use of methamphetamine is that it produces such a good feeling, that if you use it once you are most likely going to use it twice. Use it twice and you will use it three times. Slowly the occasional user becomes a regular user, and eventually a regular user becomes an addict.

My argument here on this board, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, is that occasional use for MOST people later can and will turn into full blown addiction. CJ and Superstar don't see that, but I do and so do many other people who have posted in this thread, along with the rest of the world.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
a) If an addict wants to quit, they will quit. Withdrawl symptoms or not.
You can't help someone who doesn't want to help themselves.

b) I never said that meth wasn't dangerous. I said that it is possible to take meth recreationally, and that it actually has medical uses, and you went and laid this huge egg.. Where, it IS possible for someone to take it and not have their life destroyed. The people that ABUSE the drug (take it to get high instead of some specific use) are the ones who usually end up getting hooked, and it is their own fault in the first place for having an abusing personality, and embarking on the meth path to begin with. They have weak minds. You argued that the majority of the world, has no say in whether they become an addict or not, and that meth will torture them as soon as they try it, and that's not the way it happens. People need to take more responsibility for putting it into their bodies, knowing that they might abuse it.
But you try to dismiss this, almost like you don't want to blame your friends for their own undoing, but you'd rather blame the meth, and let your friends off the hook.

c) Saying it's a disease makes it not their fault. For an addict to reach the point where they have no power over the drug, and no ability to decide to stop, means that they CHOSE to obtain the drug many many times over.
It does not happen that they take meth once, and that is the end of their lives.

d) You obviously haven't been paying attention. Stop trying to win the battle with CJ and go back and reflect.

I win!

Nowhere did I say that once people use meth it tortures them. I have said COUNTLESS TIMES that occasional use OFTEN leads to addiction. More Strawman Fallacy from you. :rolleyes:

Where are your opinions based from? Mine are based from addicts themselves, researchers, doctors, and common knowledge. Addiction specialists lable addiction to these drugs as a disease. Please, argue that!
 
unknownpro said:
So back to the constitution, what is your non-clouded opinion of Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and where is the mention of drugs? I am waiting for your valued opinion.

unknownpro

My valued opinion is this: if you had a good job with a fortune 500 company, and they told you to piss in a bottle and sent it to the lab, in three days you'd be in the unemployment line. Why do you think that is? Because companies have learned that drug abusers are unreliable.

As far as the constitution goes, I believe that we have the right to make laws that protect society from criminals. In case you haven't noticed, illegal drugs are illegal. If you wish to argue that they shouldn't be, write your local congressman.

Chris
 
Last edited:
TATE said:
My valued opinion is this: if you had a good job with a fortune 500 company, and they told you to piss in a bottle and sent it to the lab, in three days you'd be in the unemployment line. Why do you think that is? Because companies have learned that drug abusers are unreliable.

As far as the constitution goes, I believe that we have the right to make laws that protect society from criminals. In case you haven't noticed, illegal drugs are illegal. If you wish to argue that they shouldn't be, write your local congressman.

Chris
I have had a good job for many years (college degree and all) with the government itself, and I never got fired. You don't know me and don't know what I do or don't do and it's none of your business anyway. I just got back from a 4 mile run while you were probably having a drink and smoking a Camel.

What you believe has nothing to do with what the constitution says, which is the law of the land. Obviously, you can't read or can't understand what it says. I'll help you out. It says this:

Amendment X - Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The FDA or food or drugs are not mentioned in the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 which lists ALL powers of Congress, nor are they mentioned anywhere else in the Constitution. This means every federal drug law is illegal and every person enforcing those laws is breaking the law. If that's not true, please answer my question from before and enlighten me.

Drugs are not criminals, so when you say we have a right to make laws to protect us from criminals you are saying what exactly? Congress actually has no power to make laws to protect us from criminals. That's why there's no federal murder statute - or rape, or assault, or burglary.

As for the Fortune 500 companies, Thomas Jefferson tried to protect us from these worthless, non-person entities, as they were a major cause of the revolutionary war. Can you say "East India Tea Company"? They are not mentioned in the constitution either. Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he could see the damage caused by these unpatriotic, uncontrollable beasts which have gained the rights of citizens but are not bound by any type of loyalty to our country. The Bush family made lots of money during WWII through their company selling materials to the NAZIs, the company was fined large amounts of money, it's all public record, but who cares, let's all buy stuff made in China from these fine upright chamber of commerce members, while they sell us out to the highest bidder.

unknownpro
 
unknownpro said:
I have had a good job for many years (college degree and all) with the government itself, and I never got fired. You don't know me and don't know what I do or don't do and it's none of your business anyway. I just got back from a 4 mile run while you were probably having a drink and smoking a Camel.

What you believe has nothing to do with what the constitution says, which is the law of the land. Obviously, you can't read or can't understand what it says. I'll help you out. It says this:

Amendment X - Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The FDA or food or drugs are not mentioned in the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 which lists ALL powers of Congress, nor are they mentioned anywhere else in the Constitution. This means every federal drug law is illegal and every person enforcing those laws is breaking the law. If that's not true, please answer my question from before and enlighten me.

Drugs are not criminals, so when you say we have a right to make laws to protect us from criminals you are saying what exactly? Congress actually has no power to make laws to protect us from criminals. That's why there's no federal murder statute - or rape, or assault, or burglary.

As for the Fortune 500 companies, Thomas Jefferson tried to protect us from these worthless, non-person entities, as they were a major cause of the revolutionary war. Can you say "East India Tea Company"? They are not mentioned in the constitution either. Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he could see the damage caused by these unpatriotic, uncontrollable beasts which have gained the rights of citizens but are not bound by any type of loyalty to our country. The Bush family made lots of money during WWII through their company selling materials to the NAZIs, the company was fined large amounts of money, it's all public record, but who cares, let's all buy stuff made in China from these fine upright chamber of commerce members, while they sell us out to the highest bidder.

unknownpro

Tate doesn't smoke or drink and is one of the most successful people I've ever met.
 
unknownpro said:
I have had a good job for many years (college degree and all) with the government itself, and I never got fired. You don't know me and don't know what I do or don't do and it's none of your business anyway. I just got back from a 4 mile run while you were probably having a drink and smoking a Camel.

What you believe has nothing to do with what the constitution says, which is the law of the land. Obviously, you can't read or can't understand what it says. I'll help you out. It says this:

Amendment X - Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The FDA or food or drugs are not mentioned in the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 which lists ALL powers of Congress, nor are they mentioned anywhere else in the Constitution. This means every federal drug law is illegal and every person enforcing those laws is breaking the law. If that's not true, please answer my question from before and enlighten me.

Drugs are not criminals, so when you say we have a right to make laws to protect us from criminals you are saying what exactly? Congress actually has no power to make laws to protect us from criminals. That's why there's no federal murder statute - or rape, or assault, or burglary.

As for the Fortune 500 companies, Thomas Jefferson tried to protect us from these worthless, non-person entities, as they were a major cause of the revolutionary war. Can you say "East India Tea Company"? They are not mentioned in the constitution either. Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he could see the damage caused by these unpatriotic, uncontrollable beasts which have gained the rights of citizens but are not bound by any type of loyalty to our country. The Bush family made lots of money during WWII through their company selling materials to the NAZIs, the company was fined large amounts of money, it's all public record, but who cares, let's all buy stuff made in China from these fine upright chamber of commerce members, while they sell us out to the highest bidder.

unknownpro

Like I said, write a compalint letter to your local congressman or President Bush. Maybe you will change their opinion like you're changing mine.

On behalf of those of us who prefer to have drugs illegal, and illegal drug users prosecuted, please accept our sincere apologies.

Chris
 
LastTwo said:
Tate doesn't smoke or drink and is one of the most successful people I've ever met.

This guy might make me start!

By the way, I'm back from Hawaii. I forgot to bring your hula girl.

Chris
 
unknownpro said:
Just as I wouldn't take antidepressants because two people I know very well told me that they made them want to kill people. Also there's the school shootings, where settlements have been made, and millions of dollars paid in out of court settlements with gag orders so no one can talk about their payoffs. But you can find out about these things if you pay enough attention.

unknownpro

Careful, you are going to have Superstar attacking you because there are no coverups or gag orders and the Pharmaceutical companies and their Trillion dollar business wouldn't stoop to paying off anyone if the truth got out about their wonderful anti-depressants and their puppets the Psychs wouldn't make up disorders to pad their pockets. The 6 million children on anti-depressants all have mental disorders requiring this medication and the fact that they go out and start killing after they get medicated has nothing to do with it.

Wayne
 
wayne said:
6 million children in the U.S. currently on antidepressants is not a pretty picture.

Wayne

You realize that you have a better chance of hitting the lottery than actually getting shot and killed by someone who goes ballistic that was on antidepressants. And you think that it is a massive problem in this country?
Do you know probability and statistics?

You have a better chance to get hit by lightning. Heck, you have a better chance of getting hit by a METEOR. LOL

6 million kids? So i assume that by your reasoning, that there are going to be about 6 million kids going psycho and killing people, right?

You have more people killed by asprin and cars then will EVER be killed by people getting antidepressants.

and of course, you fail to mention the tons of people that antidepressants actually help. Figures.

You need to wake up from this delusion that you in.
 
Last edited:
SUPERSTAR said:
You realize that you have a better chance of hitting the lottery than actually getting shot and killed by someone who goes ballistic that was on antidepressants. And you think that it is a massive problem in this country?
Do you know probability and statistics?

You have a better chance to get hit by lightning. Heck, you have a better chance of getting hit by a METEOR. LOL

6 million kids? So i assume that by your reasoning, that there are going to be about 6 million kids going psycho and killing people, right?

You have more people killed by asprin and cars then will EVER be killed by people getting antidepressants.

and of course, you fail to mention the tons of people that antidepressants actually help. Figures.

You need to wake up from this delusion that you in.


Ok you fool how do you explain this to this to the parents at Columbine, or to the parents of the children killed by Jeff Weise in March when he shot his grandparents, then classmates, then school officials or the parents of all the other children that were killed by the other school shooters on antidepressants.

Do you tell them they all hit the lottery?

Wayne
 
wayne said:
Ok you fool how do you explain this to this to the parents at Columbine, or to the parents of the children killed by Jeff Weise in March when he shot his grandparents, then classmates, then school officials or the parents of all the other children that were killed by the other school shooters on antidepressants.

Do you tell them they all hit the lottery?

Wayne

TEMPER TEMPER. LOL, why don't you explain to me, why 6 million kids aren't killing everyone as we speak. Doesn't that just shoot your theory to all hell?
 
SUPERSTAR said:
TEMPER TEMPER. LOL, why don't you explain to me, why 6 million kids aren't killing everyone as we speak. Doesn't that just shoot your theory to all hell?

Are you really this stupid or are you just trying to play the fool?

I sure hope your pool game is not as bad as your logic.

Wayne
 
Back
Top