Is Bill O'Reilly correct about the African-American culture and race?

[Alceste]

Some people see relaxing, having a good time, and letting their hair down as a precious resource.

There are also mental health benefits to moderate use of natural psychoactive medicines. Research is being done on the effect of psilocybin on depression and anxiety, and it's more effective than any other known treatment. Psychoactive compounds tend to break destructive or unhealthy thought patterns. There's a good reason pot smokers and psychonauts have a reputation for being easy-going and relaxed.

 

[Aquitaine]

There are also mental health benefits to moderate use of natural psychoactive medicines. Research is being done on the effect of psilocybin on depression and anxiety, and it's more effective than any other known treatment. Psychoactive compounds tend to break destructive or unhealthy thought patterns. There's a good reason pot smokers and psychonauts have a reputation for being easy-going and relaxed.

Interesting, I did not know that. Though I have heard that Marijuana can be used medicinally as a pain-relief of some sort.

 

[tytlyf]

Didn't take time to read the articles I guess, just made an assumption that since I said it it must be wrong. Just to make sure I will quote from one article, you can take it or leave it (I assume you will disregard it since it disagrees with you).

Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the US elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll has found.
Released on Saturday, the AP Poll used a combination of explicit and implicit questions about race and found that prejudice has increased slightly since 2008.
In all, 51 per cent of those polled expressed explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey
When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 per cent, up from 49 per cent during the last presidential election
In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.

That's what I read and addressed in my original post concerning your link. Since the election of the first "half" black president the rhetoric has been ramped up in media to scrutinize it. Inducing fear, etc. So a jump of a few points should be expected. It doesn't indicate the long-term trend of overall racial acceptance. Which I said will diminish slowly as decades go by. The elderly in the country are considerably more racist than the youngest generation. Once one generation goes, it is replaced by a lower level of racism due to interacting with multiple races.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Oh, no argument from me. I just don't see an easy solution. Drug enforcement is certainly biased by racism. But lessening the enforcement would solve little and harm much.

Also, I think it is fair to note that economic privilege alone does agravate the consequences of enforcement. Perhaps drug enforcement laws should take into consideration the extent of choice and privilege of the offender?

Somehow I just don't see popular support for (say) locking white hollywood stars real good instead of putting them into rehab reality shows, though.

Well actually the 'solution' is quite simple, more just, far cheaper and far more in keeping with the american constiution's separation of powers - to get rid of mandatory sentencing.

Mandatory sentencing is an imposition of the legislative on the judiciary reducing the separation of powers, in addition it diminishes the ability of judges to dispense justice by imposing on judgement despite the situation specific variables that might otherwise effect the outcome of proceedings. Judges require the flexibility to determine whether or not these individuals deserve to be incarcerated, rather than merely having a rigid set of rules that must be applied against all cases without room for judicial discretion. So instead of what might be warranted by a specific case in the eyes of a judge such as a fine, a good behavior bond and enrollment in a drug rehab program with judicial oversight for a third time conviction of drug possession, the judge might be forced to incarcerate someone who poses no danger to society for years.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you see that as a solution instead as an aggravant, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

Myself, I think jail time should be demanded of drug use. And applied regardless of social and economic class, which is the big challenge here.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I guess it comes down to what you believe the purpose of imprisoning said individuals is.

For me, an appropriate outcome of judgement against personal drug use (if indeed it warrants judgement at all) would be focused on rehabilitation and reducing the incidence of recurrence. Given this, how would exposure to a prison environment assist in getting rehabilitated? With it's significant drug use and concentration of people with association to drugs... its kind of like a dating service allowing drug users to find new drug dealers. That is why I do not perceive personal drug use to be a crime that should result in jail, though would suggest suspended sentences and drug rehab programs would be applicable.

On the other hand drug related crimes, including stealing for the acquisition of drugs and crimes performed under the influence of drugs - should be punished separately. For me the focus of appropriate judicial outcomes in such a case would be not just rehabilitation but punishment and recognition of victim suffering as well. Some degree of jail time may well be required if the crimes are severe enough - but I believe that this should be determined on a case by case basis and I would suggest that drugs should play no role in judgement - that these crimes should be treated just like any other (if a claim is made that these drugs impaired their ability to make informed decisions, then that would merely mean that they should also face drug use charges but it should not effect the overall outcomes of judgement).

A third category would be drug dealing and smuggling - where for me the focus of judicial outcomes would be crime prevention while they are off the streets and punishment. To me this would be an appropriate place for jail time and arguably for mandatory sentencing (though personally I disapprove of the later)

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

If you see that as a solution instead as an aggravant, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

Myself, I think jail time should be demanded of drug use. And applied regardless of social and economic class, which is the big challenge here.

I can understand not wanting people to use drugs. But wanting to lock people up because you disagree with them is awful authoritarian of you. Do you feel the same way about people that drink alcohol?

 

[Sunstone]

There are also mental health benefits to moderate use of natural psychoactive medicines. Research is being done on the effect of psilocybin on depression and anxiety, and it's more effective than any other known treatment. Psychoactive compounds tend to break destructive or unhealthy thought patterns. There's a good reason pot smokers and psychonauts have a reputation for being easy-going and relaxed.

One might caution that some studies have indicated marijuana use has a potential downside if it is heavily used before the brain has fully formed by the age of 21 or 22. That is, its use has been associated with an increased risk of psychosis in people who were heavy users during adolescence.

 

[Magic Man]

If you see that as a solution instead as an aggravant, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

Myself, I think jail time should be demanded of drug use. And applied regardless of social and economic class, which is the big challenge here.

I'm still trying to figure out how you consider drugs like marijuana and alcohol, when used in moderation, to be destructive.

But beyond that, I really can't see any reason to believe we should lock people up for using these things. Would you mind giving me your reason(s) for supporting that?

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

So, what's the consensus, folks!?!?!

M.V.

 

[Sunstone]

Namaste,

So, what's the consensus, folks!?!?!

M.V.

Consensus? On RF? Have you been afflicted by sunstroke, my good man?

 

[Magic Man]

One might caution that some studies have indicated marijuana use has a potential downside if it is heavily used before the brain has fully formed by the age of 21 or 22. That is, its use has been associated with an increased risk of psychosis in people who were heavy users during adolescence.

That is interesting information. Legalizing the drug would make it that much easier to study its effects and get a handle on the full list of pros and cons, which to me is just another argument for legalizing it. Because even if it's illegal, a lot of people are still going to use it as we can see. So, making it harder to research it and give an accurate view of its effects might just make people more likely to use it, whereas if it's shown to have severe enough negative effects, people might be less likely to use it, legal or not.

 

[Poeticus]

Consensus? On RF? Have you been afflicted by sunstroke, my good man?

Namaste,

...

M.V.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm still trying to figure out how you consider drugs like marijuana and alcohol, when used in moderation, to be destructive.

But beyond that, I really can't see any reason to believe we should lock people up for using these things. Would you mind giving me your reason(s) for supporting that?

I see use of psychoactives as a betrayal of society, a crime in the purest moral sense, something not to be tolerated at all, regardless of law or even social acceptance. They interfere with mental balance and therefore divorce our perception from our actual living experience.

I recognize that most people - nearly all, it seems - see that as not much of a deal. For me however it is a Very Big Deal Indeed. The correspondence between our perception and reason and what we actually experience is sacred to me, and I can't very well stand anything that is detrimental to it.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I recognize that most people - nearly all, it seems - see that as not much of a deal. For me however it is a Very Big Deal Indeed. The correspondence between our perception and reason and what we actually experience is sacred to me, and I can't very well stand anything that is detrimental to it.

I have absolutely no tolerance for people who seek to deny gays the right to marry and call the existence of gay people a sin. I believe denying people that right is extremely detrimental to society as a whole, and that what a person does in their own bedroom and who they choose to do it with is nobody else's business. I think marriage equality is a very important issue, and happiness is very sacred to me (in fact it's the only thing that's sacred to me). However, I don't call for the immediate imprisonment of anyone associated with the anti-gay movement, nor would you claim I have any right to do so. What makes drug use any different?

 

[LuisDantas]

I have absolutely no tolerance for people who seek to deny gays the right to marry and call the existence of gay people a sin. I believe denying people that right is extremely detrimental to society as a whole, and that what a person does in their own bedroom and who they choose to do it with is nobody else's business. I think marriage equality is a very important issue, and happiness is very sacred to me (in fact it's the only thing that's sacred to me). However, I don't call for the immediate imprisonment of anyone associated with the anti-gay movement, nor would you claim I have any right to do so. What makes drug use any different?

It is drug use. It interferes with social relations, which are the most precious commodity of society. It masks other, even greater social problems, that end up growing unchecked as a result.

 

[Magic Man]

I see use of psychoactives as a betrayal of society, a crime in the purest moral sense, something not to be tolerated at all, regardless of law or even social acceptance. They interfere with mental balance and therefore divorce our perception from our actual living experience.

I recognize that most people - nearly all, it seems - see that as not much of a deal. For me however it is a Very Big Deal Indeed. The correspondence between our perception and reason and what we actually experience is sacred to me, and I can't very well stand anything that is detrimental to it.

I'm sorry, but I'm still unclear on this. How do they interfere with mental balance and divorce our perception from our actual living experience? I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

It is drug use. It interferes with social relations, which are the most precious commodity of society. It masks other, even greater social problems, that end up growing unchecked as a result.

The anti-gay crowd says almost the exact same thing about homosexuality. The anti-gay crowd won't tell you about the homosexual couples that love each other, live healthy lives, and have awesome, functioning families. They'll tell you about how homosexuality spreads disease, gay men are notoriously promiscuous, and children are psychologically damaged by witnessing this depravity around them.
You don't want to hear about people who use drugs responsibly, have perfectly functioning professional and social lives, and other than the fact that they use drugs are full on law-abiding citizens. You would rather paint the picture of raving crackheads rampaging down our streets with rusty knives looking to rob anybody for whatever change they can dig up.
Do you not see the parallel here?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sorry, but I'm still unclear on this. How do they interfere with mental balance and divorce our perception from our actual living experience? I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here.

Actually, I should thank you for asking. It is very difficult for me to understand how other people perceive the issue if they don't ask. For what it is worth, let me assure you that I see your questions as very respectful, if occasionally puzzling.

You see, for reasons difficult for me to pinpoint and not entirely healthy, personal responsibility is a value that is very close to the top in my worldview.

Our existence is a limited period of time during which we receive and cause impressions from the environment, including other people. During that time we go through a lot of uncertain situations and end up doing a lot of things that are not always wise, often enough without a true choice.

The end result is that we will be unfair, unwise, destructive. All that is uncertain is to which degree, and how much we will try and manage to do to compensate that.

By this duty-oriented view of mine, the very idea of using psychoactives - substances that instead of allowing one to perceive reality as it is and adjusting or learning from it "get in the way" and force different perceptions, distorted or unrelated to the actual consensual reality - is by definition an obscenity.

I was shocked to (gradually) learn that not many people think so.

 

[LuisDantas]

The anti-gay crowd says almost the exact same thing about homosexuality. The anti-gay crowd won't tell you about the homosexual couples that love each other, live healthy lives, and have awesome, functioning families. They'll tell you about how homosexuality spreads disease, gay men are notoriously promiscuous, and children are psychologically damaged by witnessing this depravity around them.
You don't want to hear about people who use drugs responsibly, have perfectly functioning professional and social lives, and other than the fact that they use drugs are full on law-abiding citizens. You would rather paint the picture of raving crackheads rampaging down our streets with rusty knives looking to rob anybody for whatever change they can dig up.
Do you not see the parallel here?

Why do you keep comparing drug use with homosexuality exactly?

People are homosexual. People use psychoactives.

There is a major difference there, isn't there?