Listen up losers,
I know you are desperate to be cool and party all night long. But every time you snort cocaine you become an even bigger loser than the sorry ass loser that lead you to use in the first place. And every time you convince yourself that “It’s okay to do cocaine once in a while,” the cocaine takes one more step in owning your sorry ass. In fact, by the time you’ve finished reading this you’ve become more of a loser for trying to convince yourself that how you use cocaine is different and okay. It’s not. Never will be. Damage is permanent, idiot. If you use cocaine, even occasionally, you are—by all standards—a fucking loser. It won’t make you happy. Ditch your loser friends and destructive habits. Grow the fuck up. You might find a happy person under that pile of lies. —Junky
This article appears in Jul 2-8, 2015.
Is this about concern for someone’s health or your morality?
You are factually incorrect in your assertion as you sit writing this with your pitcher of margueritas.
Great song by J J Cale though…….
Putting on my awesome morality hat for a minute…
I tend to agree with OP here. Ever notice how happy and well adjusted people don’t use? It seems to be that all the users think they have it “under control”. I’ve personally seen it take down three close friends/family members in the last 10 years. They all thought their occasional use was “under control”. Funny how that works.
That shit messes with your dopamine. It changes your brain circuitry. This is not weed kids.
Seems to be a lot of cocaine going around the city these days – maybe there are just more depressed people with nothing better to do with their lives around. And I’m sure it’s not the purest powder we get in this part of the world…
It’s also a huge turn off. I was saddened when I found out a girl I was after was an “occasional” user. I can’t help it.
Morality hat off.
You sound like you’re speaking from personal experience.
Kookey thing is, you can put any other narcotic in place of cocaine and it’s the same bitch with a different flavour!!
Troll,
Indeed…any drug that messes with dopamine is a recipe for disaster.
Ah, the devil’s dandruff. A fool’s drug.
What Coke…. ?
Oh, it’s totally under control
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/t94WBO_fO4w/mqdefau…
Don’t try to fool us Willard. We all know you’re a loose cannon.
You take Sally and I’ll take Sue
Their ain’t no difference between the two
Cocaine, running all ’round my brain
Headin’ down Scott, turnin’ up main
Looking for that girl that sells cocaine
Cocaine, runnin’ all ’round my brain
Mama come here quick
That old cocaine ’bout to make me sick
Cocaine, running all ’round my brain
Late last night, about a quarter past four
Ladanyi come knockin’ down my hotel room door
Where’s the cocaine? Said, “It’s runnin’ all ’round my brain”
I was talking to my doctor down at the hospital
He said, “Son, it says here you’re twenty-seven but that’s impossible
Cocaine, “You look like you could be forty-five”
Now I’m losing touch with reality and I’m almost out of blow
It’s such a fine line, I hate to see it go
Cocaine, runnin’ all ’round my brain
“Ever notice how happy and well adjusted people don’t use?”
Yes, but we don’t notice the happy and well adjusted people who do use because drug use is stigmatized.
“I’ve personally seen it take down three close friends/family members in the last 10 years”
That’s a great anecdote based on your personal selective memory. Now you must determine the percentage of all past users whose lives were ruined by their use of cocaine. Now compare this with an alternative product that is less stigmatized, such as scratchy lotteries, cigarettes or alcohol.
Kind regards
SirMeowaLot;
You’ve made the false assumption that I support the abuse of various other substances. There is a big difference between smoking a joint and snorting cocaine. It has to do with Dopamine, our reward circuitry (which by the way gets rewired with drugs such as cocaine) and how this affects our brain chemistry. It is also highly addictive.
Of course it’s stigmatized; it has some very serious health repercussions. They don’t call them hard drugs for nothing. Snorting one line does a lot more damage than having a few drinks. I’ve known users to put on a good “happy and well adjusted” veneer, but it always crumbles.
And for the record, I’ve seen alcohol take down some close family members and friends. Unfortunately the two often go hand in hand.
I’m sick of the cocaine apologists. I have no qualms about telling people how I feel about these drugs. I think a lot of young adults like the pretend they’re hot shots – just like the movies!
I’ve made zero false assumptions. I don’t care about your belief system.
I’ve heard a lot of talk recently from people about doing coke. Usually it’s after I admit to being a stoner, and I found it a bit shocking to be honest. I thought it was something rich people did in fancy bathrooms and had no idea it was so common. Anyway, I guess not, but I found it disturbing that people are so cavalier about cocaine use. Never done it myself, so maybe I’m ‘sheltered’, but I find it very incorrect that many people put cocaine on the same level as marijuana in terms of addiction and harm.
Man has been using drugs for thousands of years and that is certainly not going to change anytime soon. If you choose to experiment with any drug, you should be responsible and do your research beforehand. I think that the new acceptability of cocaine as a regular, everyday drug is going to be met with some pretty harsh life lessons for some people, but to say that any and all use is abuse is a pretty big stretch.
Harper,
Problem with cocaine is that it is fairly addictive. There is a big risk here with ‘experimenting’ and the health consequences can be quite serious. My problem is that people seem to have convinced themselves otherwise – but that is precisely why cocaine is dangerous; it can convince you, through its impact on dopamine and neurotransmitters, that it os OK to use.
Cocaine seems to make a comeback in the popular culture every few years, and it usually takes quite a toll.
It’s problematic in at least 4 main ways: it’s deceptive, destructive, addictive, and expensive.
It’s been around for a long time, but I’ve yet to see any evidence of people emerging from long-term use unscathed.
It’s deceptive, destructive, addictive and expensive? That makes it pretty problematic for me too. The question, of course, is whether there is any causal inter-relationship between the four characteristics of cocaine. Could it, for example, be deceptive without being destructive, addictive without being expensive, or are all four characteristics conceptually (and so necessarily) connected as a matter of logical implication? Support for your claims, whether evidential or conceptual, is of course required.
Montreal,
It’s deceptive as in it makes your brain think it’s ok to do more and more by rewiring your neuropathways or “pleasure circuitry”. This in itself will lead to more use over time as your brain slowly washes away any hesitation in using. Regardless of the cost, the fact that it is deceptive and leads to increasing use is also leads to more money spent to satisfy one’s dopamine needs, which have now been distorted by cocaine use.
Its deceptive nature lies in the fact that it rewires your brain, and therefore the user is not aware of the changes taking place.
I always find it interesting listening to users try to justify it. I sometimes wonder if they really believe what they are saying. But then I am reminded that yes, indeed they do. That’s precisely what that drug does to their brains.
RSVP
: jhey 12:32PM
I think you misunderstood my point which was philosophical rather than physiological or economic. Your key characteristic, that it is deceptive, leads on to its being addictive, destructive and expensive. But could it be addictive, destructive and expensive without it being deceptive, i.e., the addict, being an addict, was fully aware of is deceptive powers? Also, its being expensive seems to be an outrider. Maybe the addict is wealthy and so its being expensive might not factor into its being deceptive or even destructive.
I hasten to add that these comments are not to be construed as an attempt to justify its use but only to explore the inter-relationship among the four characteristics attributed to cocaine use.
Cheerio
Montrealman,
I have no desire to explore any of these relationships. It rewrites your brain. It’s bad on so many levels. Bad.
Cocaine is bad, mmmk?
Having seen firsthand the horrific results of hard drug use on children, teens, and adults, and also having knowledge of the millions of tax dollars that are spent (successfully?/unsuccessfully?) attempting to assist addicted individuals and repair some of the damage done to survivors, family members, and friends, I am no longer interested in breezy academic debate over the finer points of what aspect of drug abuse determines what other aspect.
Everyone should know by now that cocaine is not a harmless recreational drug.
I don’t buy the propaganda that says that being against cocaine means being a stuffy old stick in the mud who doesn’t know how to have a good time and enjoy life.
People who use cocaine risk bringing serious damage to their physical and mental health, and finding themselves permanently isolated and unable to function normally.
Angel,
Well said. The recent surge of apologists (and probably users) is perplexing.
J
RSVPS
: jhey (07, 12, 3:57PM)
As I clearly indicated in my previous comment my reference to exploring the inter-relationships among the four characteristic attributed to cocaine use was philosophical only. But being “philosophical” need not imply being useless. It’s always good idea to know what we’re talking about when we talk about something, wouldn’t you agree?
: Angel of the Tarsands (7:02PM)
You may not be interested in any “breezy intellectual debate” over cocaine use but – and this might surprise you – that does not end the debate. Of course, I don’t have the solution to cocaine use but then neither do you (or jhey). However, I do think it’s a good idea to reflect in a systematic way on the concept of addiction. In any case, intellectual debate is never “breezy.”
Montreal,
sorry just meant at that time was not interested. I’m sure it’s a valid debate. Maybe there are some answers tucked in there somewhere.
I think we have to distinguish between what we can do about the victims of cocaine addiction in real life and what we can do on Bitch. In the case of the former it consists of taking measures to eliminate that addiction, whatever those measures might be.
In the case of the latter, I see what we can do on Bitch reduces to two options: We can either engage in dramatic hand-wringing and eye-ball rolling or we can attempt to rationally explore the nature of addiction itself. This was my approach in my attempted analysis of the four characteristics of addiction. However, my approach being philosophical, involved giving counter-factuals for each to destabilize those characteristics. My principal counter-factual was to the third characteristic: Addiction. This reduces to the claim that John is a cocaine addict because he is addicted to cocaine. This is not only tautological but completely redundant. It is empty. Have a good day
We know cocaine is addictive and destructive. I am more interested in why people start using in the first place. For example, I have no desire to ever use cocaine. Why? Why is the person next to me so drawn to using? Is she depressed? Miserable? Immature?
We all.habe our vices, of course.
We know cocaine is addictive and destructive. I am more interested in why people start using in the first place. For example, I have no desire to ever use cocaine. Why? Why is the person next to me so drawn to using? Is she depressed? Miserable? Immature?
We all have our vices, of course.
Of course that is the question – why do some people start using cocaine n the first place? You mention things like depression, misery, immaturity but would it be contradictory to speak about the happy and mature cocaine addict? Why?
Because in many people’s experience, there is no happy mature cocaine user. Only a thin veneer with a coat of gloss. There might be the exception, of course, but in general…
That may be the case “in many people’s experience” but that is only an empirical claim. My question related to whether it would be logically contradictory to speak of “the happy and mature cocaine user.” If it were not logically contradictory then it appears that your empirical claim has been de-stabilized, even rendered incoherent, Would you agree?
No.
Why is it that EVERY time someone mentions any generalized comment or an anecdote, someone has to say “well what about the other cases that are not like that” – CLEARLY I’m aware that a few people might be ok, but they would still have some health issues associated with use. And same goes for throwing in other drugs. It’s like some people want to sound intelligent by doing that but we are all aware that anectodes and generalized comments are just that; generalized.
I assume that you exclude me from those who want to sound intelligent by saying “well what about the other cases that are not like that.” Unlike them I have no need to sound intelligent – it is commonly seen to be the fact of the matter that I am – but rather my point was to distinguish simple empirical claims in respect to which special exceptions might have force, on the one hand, and logically contradictory claims in respect to which they do not and are, in effect, lethal on the other. The difficulty, of course, is distinguishing the broadly empirical from the tightly logical claim. In other words, when does the first rise to that point at which it is transformed into the second? Woul you want to give it a go?
I excluded you, yes.
FUMBLED THE BALL
Thank you for excluding me from those who simply wanted to sound intelligent but in fact were not. You realized that I have no need to sound intelligent since it is commonly seen to be the fact of the matter that I am.
However, you fumbled the ball on the more philosophically interesting part of my reply, i.e. attempting to establish that tipping point at which broadly empirical claims cease to be merely empirical and become tightly logical. In other words, when does the weight of a multitude of empirical claims cease being merely contingent and become necessarily decisive? In still other words it is a “weight of evidence” issue that one often finds in courts of law. Would you say 75%? 85%? or even greater? Support your selection with reasons.
Good luck!
I don’t fumble.
Could you support that assertion with an example? Write back soon.
Where’s Jhey? Where is dat boy?
I’m at the place where smarter people go.
Where would that be? How did you gain admittance? Was it under false pretences? Did you claim that you had graduated from high school?