WTF?:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>

it's beyond my ken


-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:

> WTF?:
> 
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
> 
> it's beyond my ken

Bizarre.


-- 
In general, Girl One maintains the complexion
of a waterlogged corpse.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
>
>> WTF?:
>> 
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
>> 
>> it's beyond my ken
>
>Bizarre.
Watching it now on telly.
They're either drugged, drunk, or just plain shpxvat nuts.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
   Got any large hadrons you want collided, guvnor?

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
> 
>> WTF?:
>> 
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
>> 
>> it's beyond my ken
> 
> Bizarre.

Drugs.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

In message <gbgrph$m6v$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
<fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
>>
>>> WTF?:
>>>
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
>>>
>>> it's beyond my ken
>>
>> Bizarre.
>
>Drugs.
>
Which ones, and where can I get 'em?

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In article <gbgrph$m6v$1@aioe.org>, fevric@invalid.invalid says...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
> > 
> >> WTF?:
> >> 
> >> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
> >> 
> >> it's beyond my ken
> > 
> > Bizarre.
> 
> Drugs.

Bad trip?
-- 
SAm.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:07:26 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:

> In article <gbgrph$m6v$1@aioe.org>, fevric@invalid.invalid says...
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
>> 
>> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
>> > 
>> >> WTF?:
>> >> 
>> >> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
>> >> 
>> >> it's beyond my ken
>> > 
>> > Bizarre.
>> 
>> Drugs.
> 
> Bad trip?

Not half!

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Fevric J Glandules 
said:
> 
> My guess, LSD.
> 
> > and where can I get 'em?
> 
> Your local dealer, but just remember kids, drugs and motorways don't mix!
> 
I greatly enjoyed a coach trip in the rain from That London to Manc 
after the PinkFloyd/SoftMachine gig at the Rainbow.
I wasn't driving, though.

-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

In article <gbh474$mvq$1@aioe.org>,
 Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:52:40 +0100, bof wrote:
> 
> > In message <gbgrph$m6v$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
> > <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
> >>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> WTF?:
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
> >>>>
> >>>> it's beyond my ken
> >>>
> >>> Bizarre.
> >>
> >>Drugs.
> >>
> > Which ones, 
> 
> IANAD.
> 
> My guess, LSD.

That would seem to be the most likely explanation, it's true.  Scotland
didn't get the programme, unfortunately; we had Jodie Kidd discovering
that one of her ancestors was a cash-for-honours beneficiary instead.
-- 
SAm.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:52:40 +0100, bof 
wrote:

>In message <gbgrph$m6v$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
><fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
>>>
>>>> WTF?:
>>>>
>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
>>>>
>>>> it's beyond my ken
>>>
>>> Bizarre.
>>
>>Drugs.
>>
>Which ones, and where can I get 'em?

ketamine? the vets?
-- 
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Sam Nelson said:
> In article <gbh474$mvq$1@aioe.org>,
>  Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:52:40 +0100, bof wrote:
> > 
> > > In message <gbgrph$m6v$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
> > > <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
> > >>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> WTF?:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> it's beyond my ken
> > >>>
> > >>> Bizarre.
> > >>
> > >>Drugs.
> > >>
> > > Which ones, 
> > 
> > IANAD.
> > 
> > My guess, LSD.
> 
> That would seem to be the most likely explanation, it's true.  Scotland
> didn't get the programme, unfortunately; we had Jodie Kidd discovering
> that one of her ancestors was a cash-for-honours beneficiary instead.
> 
All the regions are up in the high 900s on Sky
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:52:40 +0100, bof wrote:
>
>> In message <gbgrph$m6v$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
>> <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> WTF?:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
>>>>>
>>>>> it's beyond my ken
>>>>
>>>> Bizarre.
>>>
>>>Drugs.
>>>
>> Which ones, 
>
> IANAD.
>
> My guess, LSD.

PCP?

-- 
In fourteen months I've only smiled once and I didn't do it consciously

In message , August West 
 writes
>Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:52:40 +0100, bof wrote:
>>
>>> In message <gbgrph$m6v$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules
>>> <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> WTF?:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's beyond my ken
>>>>>
>>>>> Bizarre.
>>>>
>>>>Drugs.
>>>>
>>> Which ones,
>>
>> IANAD.
>>
>> My guess, LSD.
>
>PCP?
>

Whatever it is, if it enables you survive being hit by a juggernaut or a 
car on the motorway and then get up and fight off the police, it's 
bloody good stuff.

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

bof  writes:

> In message , August West
>  writes
>>
>>PCP?
>>
>
> Whatever it is, if it enables you survive being hit by a juggernaut or
> a car on the motorway and then get up and fight off the police, it's
> bloody good stuff.

PCP allows you to slice your face off with a broken mirror and feed it
to your dog. Or not. (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/facepeel.asp)

How can you not love a drug ike that?

-- 
fun, fun, fun

bof  wrote:

> WTF?:
> 
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
> 
> it's beyond my ken

Beyond mine too, which bit of the M6 was it? I can't get the sound on
that clip until I get home.

No sign of any survival genes in that particular family.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
magically appears in front of bof:

> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
> 
> it's beyond my ken

I don't think they have motorways in Sweden...
-- 
http://www.munted.org.uk

Fearsome grindings.

In message , August West 
 writes
>bof  writes:
>
>> In message , August West
>>  writes
>>>
>>>PCP?
>>>
>>
>> Whatever it is, if it enables you survive being hit by a juggernaut or
>> a car on the motorway and then get up and fight off the police, it's
>> bloody good stuff.
>
>PCP allows you to slice your face off with a broken mirror and feed it
>to your dog. Or not. (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/facepeel.asp)
>
>How can you not love a drug ike that?

Having taken a look at the photo I've suddenly become vary wary of the 
stuff.

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Sam Nelson wrote:

> That would seem to be the most likely explanation, it's true.  Scotland
> didn't get the programme, unfortunately; we had Jodie Kidd discovering
> that one of her ancestors was a cash-for-honours beneficiary instead.

And another murdered his brother, burnt the house down then topped 
himself. Some folks have all the fun.

On 2008-09-26, bof  wrote:
> In message , August West 
> writes
>>bof  writes:
>>
>>> In message , August West
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>>PCP?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever it is, if it enables you survive being hit by a juggernaut or
>>> a car on the motorway and then get up and fight off the police, it's
>>> bloody good stuff.
>>
>>PCP allows you to slice your face off with a broken mirror and feed it
>>to your dog. Or not. (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/facepeel.asp)
>>
>>How can you not love a drug ike that?
>
> Having taken a look at the photo I've suddenly become vary wary of the 
> stuff.

I always was; it's a horse tranquiliser, FFS.

Indeed, I'm wary of most drugs - I worry I might like them.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:03:24 +0100, Alex Buell 
wrote the following to uk.misc:

> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
> magically appears in front of bof:
>
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
>> 
>> it's beyond my ken
>
> I don't think they have motorways in Sweden...

Probably why they came here.

mh.
-- 
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> Indeed, I'm wary of most drugs - I worry I might like them.

Very sensible. 
I *know* I like opiates. 

-- 
it's always me that ends up getting wet

On 26 Sep 2008 11:11:51 GMT, Huge wrote:

> On 2008-09-26, bof  wrote:
<snip>

>>
>> Having taken a look at the photo I've suddenly become vary wary of the 
>> stuff.
> 
> I always was; it's a horse tranquiliser, FFS.
> 
> Indeed, I'm wary of most drugs - I worry I might like them.

Yup - I've been on Morphine and Valium (in hospital), and they are both
Very Nice. The good/bad thing about booze is the sheer variety - from
alcopops, via Guinness, to Pouilly-Fumé. The right wine, with the right
food, is a wonderful thing.


-- 
The one function that TV news performs very well is that when there
is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if it were.

In article ,
 Carlton Miniott  writes:
> Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Sam Nelson said:
> > In article <gbh474$mvq$1@aioe.org>,
> >  Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> > > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:52:40 +0100, bof wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In message <gbgrph$m6v$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
> > > > <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
> > > >>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:50:23 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, bof wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> WTF?:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> it's beyond my ken
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Bizarre.
> > > >>
> > > >>Drugs.
> > > >>
> > > > Which ones, 
> > > 
> > > IANAD.
> > > 
> > > My guess, LSD.
> > 
> > That would seem to be the most likely explanation, it's true.  Scotland
> > didn't get the programme, unfortunately; we had Jodie Kidd discovering
> > that one of her ancestors was a cash-for-honours beneficiary instead.
> > 
> All the regions are up in the high 900s on Sky

Murdoch telly?  Say noooo!
-- 
SAm.

In article <gbig1n$45g$1@anubis.demon.co.uk>, Huge@nowhere.much.invalid 
says...
> On 2008-09-26, bof  wrote:
> > In message , August West 
> > writes
> >>bof  writes:
> >>
> >>> In message , August West
> >>>  writes
> >>>>
> >>>>PCP?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Whatever it is, if it enables you survive being hit by a juggernaut or
> >>> a car on the motorway and then get up and fight off the police, it's
> >>> bloody good stuff.
> >>
> >>PCP allows you to slice your face off with a broken mirror and feed it
> >>to your dog. Or not. (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/facepeel.asp)
> >>
> >>How can you not love a drug ike that?
> >
> > Having taken a look at the photo I've suddenly become vary wary of the 
> > stuff.
> 
> I always was; it's a horse tranquiliser, FFS.

Damn good stuff though. I can understand why people get addicted to it.

Marcus Houlden  writes:

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:03:24 +0100, Alex Buell 
> wrote the following to uk.misc:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:03:38 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
>> magically appears in front of bof:
>>
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm>
>>> 
>>> it's beyond my ken
>>
>> I don't think they have motorways in Sweden...
>
> Probably why they came here.

Well they could build some.  2, 4, 6, 8?  It's never too late.

Chris
-- 
Chris Eilbeck

August West  wrote:

> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> 
> > Indeed, I'm wary of most drugs - I worry I might like them.
> 
> Very sensible. 
> I *know* I like opiates. 

That's odd (to me), I really don't. A drug that gives the user chronic
constipation in return for a bit of numbness isn't top of my list of
things worth doing. I do like beer, but not to the point of throwing up
or dizziness.

Tea's quite nice.

In article <1invnpa.deg5fnbm6cyfN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
@malloc.co.uk says...
> August West  wrote:
> 
> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> > 
> > > Indeed, I'm wary of most drugs - I worry I might like them.
> > 
> > Very sensible. 
> > I *know* I like opiates. 
> 
> That's odd (to me), I really don't. A drug that gives the user chronic
> constipation in return for a bit of numbness isn't top of my list of
> things worth doing. I do like beer, but not to the point of throwing up
> or dizziness.

Being on opiates is the best thing that's happened to my Dad for years 
(apart from being on O2). He's quite prepared to put with having to take 
laxatives if it means he can have a conversation without getting out of 
breath, or laugh at a joke without having a coughing fit.

Amethyst Deceiver  wrote:

> In article <1invnpa.deg5fnbm6cyfN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
> @malloc.co.uk says...
> > August West  wrote:
> > 
> > > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Indeed, I'm wary of most drugs - I worry I might like them.
> > > 
> > > Very sensible. 
> > > I *know* I like opiates. 
> > 
> > That's odd (to me), I really don't. A drug that gives the user chronic
> > constipation in return for a bit of numbness isn't top of my list of
> > things worth doing. I do like beer, but not to the point of throwing up
> > or dizziness.
> 
> Being on opiates is the best thing that's happened to my Dad for years
> (apart from being on O2). He's quite prepared to put with having to take
> laxatives if it means he can have a conversation without getting out of
> breath, or laugh at a joke without having a coughing fit.

Yes, I can see the point if one is unwell, but constipation for
recreational purposes doesn't strike me as "fun".

On 2008-09-26, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Amethyst Deceiver  wrote:
>
>> In article <1invnpa.deg5fnbm6cyfN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
>> @malloc.co.uk says...
>> > August West  wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>> > > 
>> > > > Indeed, I'm wary of most drugs - I worry I might like them.
>> > > 
>> > > Very sensible. 
>> > > I *know* I like opiates. 
>> > 
>> > That's odd (to me), I really don't. A drug that gives the user chronic
>> > constipation in return for a bit of numbness isn't top of my list of
>> > things worth doing. I do like beer, but not to the point of throwing up
>> > or dizziness.
>> 
>> Being on opiates is the best thing that's happened to my Dad for years
>> (apart from being on O2). He's quite prepared to put with having to take
>> laxatives if it means he can have a conversation without getting out of
>> breath, or laugh at a joke without having a coughing fit.
>
> Yes, I can see the point if one is unwell, but constipation for
> recreational purposes doesn't strike me as "fun".

I think you only have to look at Amy Winehouse to see how much "fun"
recreational drugs can be.

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 26 Sep 2008 15:07:56 GMT, I waved a wand and this message magically
appears in front of Huge:

> > Yes, I can see the point if one is unwell, but constipation for
> > recreational purposes doesn't strike me as "fun".
> 
> I think you only have to look at Amy Winehouse to see how much "fun"
> recreational drugs can be.

She's not on "recreational" drugs at all, she's an abuser. She uses
the wrong drugs for all the wrong reasons. Thank fuck she's married,
she'd be even more of a danger unmarried, and that husband of hers,
ugh, what a knuckle scraper...

There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
abuser. Of the people I used to hang out with at parties years ago, some
have become dependent, some have just grown up and got a life, a career
and a family etc... and the rest ended up with just fucked minds...
-- 
http://www.munted.org.uk

Fearsome grindings.

On 2008-09-27, Alex Buell  wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2008 15:07:56 GMT, I waved a wand and this message magically
> appears in front of Huge:
>
>> > Yes, I can see the point if one is unwell, but constipation for
>> > recreational purposes doesn't strike me as "fun".
>> 
>> I think you only have to look at Amy Winehouse to see how much "fun"
>> recreational drugs can be.
>
> She's not on "recreational" drugs at all, she's an abuser. 

No shit, Sherlock.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 2008-09-27, Alex Buell  wrote:

> There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
> abuser. 

No there isn't.

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

In article <gbq5ji$1qk$4@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> On 2008-09-27, Alex Buell  wrote:
> 
> > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
> > abuser. 
> 
> No there isn't.

Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
-- 
SAm.

On 29 Sep 2008 09:02:42 GMT, Huge wrote:

> On 2008-09-27, Alex Buell  wrote:
> 
>> There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
>> abuser. 
> 
> No there isn't.

Yes there is. It's about who is in control of your drug usage - you, or the
drug.


-- 
I ain't no fucking canary.

In article ,
Sam Nelson  wrote:

>Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
>it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.

If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
makes it a pretty useless definition.  Surely "abuse" ought to imply
wrong, rather than merely unintended, use.

-- Richard
-- 
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:

> In article ,
> Sam Nelson  wrote:
>
>>Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
>>it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
>
> If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
> makes it a pretty useless definition.

When talking about recreational drug use, pretty much every definition
is useless. It's best to just move on, and have another drink.

-- 
the man up the spiral staircase

In article <gbq5ji$1qk$4@anubis.demon.co.uk>, Huge@nowhere.much.invalid 
says...
> On 2008-09-27, Alex Buell  wrote:
> 
> > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
> > abuser. 
> 
> No there isn't.
> 

Really? So you are an alcoholic just like everyone else who drinks 
alcohol now and again?

-- 
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.

In article <gbqc4o$2tfp$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
 richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
> In article ,
> Sam Nelson  wrote:
> 
> >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
> >it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
> 
> If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
> makes it a pretty useless definition.

Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as anything
other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.
-- 
SAm.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:25:35 +0100, Sam Nelson 
wrote the following to uk.misc:

> In article <gbq5ji$1qk$4@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
>  Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>> On 2008-09-27, Alex Buell  wrote:
>> 
>> > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
>> > abuser. 
>> 
>> No there isn't.
>
> Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
> it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.

I think the usual term these days is drug misuse rather than drug abuse, as
in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.


mh.
-- 
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

In article ,
 Marcus Houlden  writes:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:25:35 +0100, Sam Nelson 
> wrote the following to uk.misc:
> 
> > In article <gbq5ji$1qk$4@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
> >  Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> >> On 2008-09-27, Alex Buell  wrote:
> >> 
> >> > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
> >> > abuser. 
> >> 
> >> No there isn't.
> >
> > Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
> > it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
> 
> I think the usual term these days is drug misuse rather than drug abuse, as
> in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

I'm not sure there's a significant difference; it's a clearer term, though.

A bunch that used to be down the corridor from here was called
the `Drug Abuse Research Group' and then the `Drug Use RG' and then the
`Substance Misuse RG' and then the `Substance Use RG' as fashions changed.
It moved away, so I dunno what it's called now.
-- 
SAm.

On 29 Sep 2008 09:02:42 GMT, I waved a wand and this message magically
appears in front of Huge:

> > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
> > abuser. 
> 
> No there isn't.

Yes there is. What's the difference between an alcoholic and a person
who drinks socially? It's the same thing. 
-- 
http://www.munted.org.uk

Fearsome grindings.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:02:47 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:

>In article <gbqc4o$2tfp$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
> richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>> In article ,
>> Sam Nelson  wrote:
>> 
>> >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
>> >it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
>> 
>> If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
>> makes it a pretty useless definition.
>
>Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as anything
>other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.

Bollocks!  Heroin is a drug.<<full stop  It can be used as a
painkiller, or it can be used recreationally, and for all I know it
may have other uses.  None of these is, of itself, abuse.  However
both recreational and painkilling usage can develop to an abusive
level.

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: home at peteward dot gotadsl dot co dot uk
I think his portrayal of zombie lust and carnal desires is by far the most sensitive of the genre.
- N Jill Marsh

In article ,
 Alex Buell  writes:
> On 29 Sep 2008 09:02:42 GMT, I waved a wand and this message magically
> appears in front of Huge:
> 
> > > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
> > > abuser. 
> > 
> > No there isn't.
> 
> Yes there is. What's the difference between an alcoholic and a person
> who drinks socially? It's the same thing. 

The former is using the product in a way it wasn't designed to be used.
The latter isn't.
-- 
SAm.

"Sam Nelson"  wrote

>> > > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
>> > > abuser.
>> >
>> > No there isn't.
>>
>> Yes there is. What's the difference between an alcoholic and a person
>> who drinks socially? It's the same thing.
>
> The former is using the product in a way it wasn't designed to be used.
> The latter isn't.

So no such thing as LSD abuse, then?

sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) writes:

> In article ,
>  Alex Buell  writes:
>> On 29 Sep 2008 09:02:42 GMT, I waved a wand and this message magically
>> appears in front of Huge:
>> 
>> > > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
>> > > abuser. 
>> > 
>> > No there isn't.
>> 
>> Yes there is. What's the difference between an alcoholic and a person
>> who drinks socially? It's the same thing. 
>
> The former is using the product in a way it wasn't designed to be
> used.  The latter isn't.

Is this a metaphysical or moral difference?

-- 
I'm never going back again

In article ,
 Peter Ward  writes:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:02:47 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
> 
> >In article <gbqc4o$2tfp$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
> > richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
> >> In article ,
> >> Sam Nelson  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
> >> >it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
> >> 
> >> If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
> >> makes it a pretty useless definition.
> >
> >Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as anything
> >other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.
> 
> Bollocks!  Heroin is a drug.

With you so far...

<<full stop

Patronising jerk.

> It can be used as a painkiller, or it can be used recreationally, and for
> all I know it may have other uses.

It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.  Nothing else.

> None of these is, of itself, abuse.

Any use other than as a painkiller is abuse.  Harold Shipman used it
as a murder weapon, apparently.

> However
> both recreational and painkilling usage can develop to an abusive
> level.

If it's being used as a painkiller, it's presumably under the direction
of a healthcare professional of some sort, and used as directed in these
circumstances cannot possibly be abuse.
-- 
SAm.

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Sam Nelson said:
> In article <gbqc4o$2tfp$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>  richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
> > In article ,
> > Sam Nelson  wrote:
> > 
> > >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
> > >it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
> > 
> > If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
> > makes it a pretty useless definition.
> 
> Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as anything
> other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.
> 
It's a drug which /may/ be used as a painkiller. L's dad uses it as a 
cough suppressant, mainly - not much painkilling involved.
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

Carlton Miniott  writes:

> Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Sam Nelson said:
>> In article <gbqc4o$2tfp$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>>  richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>> > In article ,
>> > Sam Nelson  wrote:
>> > 
>> > >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose
>> > >for which it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
>> > 
>> > If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse,
>> > which makes it a pretty useless definition.
>> 
>> Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as
>> anything other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.
>> 
> It's a drug which /may/ be used as a painkiller. L's dad uses it as a
> cough suppressant, mainly - not much painkilling involved.

I guess it's licenced for that, so SAm's argument still stands (FWTW).

-- 
There's no success like failure

In article ,
Sam Nelson  wrote:

>> >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
>> >it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.

>> If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
>> makes it a pretty useless definition.

>Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as anything
>other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.

Yes, that would follow from your definition of "abuse".  But I don't
think that's a good definition, because "abuse" suggests "bad", and
"using something for other than its intended purpose" isn't
necessarily bad.

Now it might turn out that all unintended uses of heroin were bad, and
therefore abuse, but that would be a property of heroin, not something
that's true by definition.

-- Richard
-- 
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In article <48e0caf6$0$26092$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
 "Mr. Broadhurst"  writes:
> 
> "Sam Nelson"  wrote
> 
> >> > > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
> >> > > abuser.
> >> >
> >> > No there isn't.
> >>
> >> Yes there is. What's the difference between an alcoholic and a person
> >> who drinks socially? It's the same thing.
> >
> > The former is using the product in a way it wasn't designed to be used.
> > The latter isn't.
> 
> So no such thing as LSD abuse, then?

It appears not.
-- 
SAm.

In article ,
 August West  writes:
> sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) writes:
> 
> > In article ,
> >  Alex Buell  writes:
> >> On 29 Sep 2008 09:02:42 GMT, I waved a wand and this message magically
> >> appears in front of Huge:
> >> 
> >> > > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
> >> > > abuser. 
> >> > 
> >> > No there isn't.
> >> 
> >> Yes there is. What's the difference between an alcoholic and a person
> >> who drinks socially? It's the same thing. 
> >
> > The former is using the product in a way it wasn't designed to be
> > used.  The latter isn't.
> 
> Is this a metaphysical or moral difference?

Do any of the people that produce alcoholic beverages actually intend
their customers to damage themselves with it?  I think probably not.
-- 
SAm.

sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) writes:

> In article ,
>  August West  writes:
>> sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) writes:
>> 
>> > In article ,
>> >  Alex Buell  writes:
>> >> On 29 Sep 2008 09:02:42 GMT, I waved a wand and this message magically
>> >> appears in front of Huge:
>> >> 
>> >> > > There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
>> >> > > abuser. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > No there isn't.
>> >> 
>> >> Yes there is. What's the difference between an alcoholic and a person
>> >> who drinks socially? It's the same thing. 
>> >
>> > The former is using the product in a way it wasn't designed to be
>> > used.  The latter isn't.
>> 
>> Is this a metaphysical or moral difference?
>
> Do any of the people that produce alcoholic beverages actually intend
> their customers to damage themselves with it?  I think probably not.

Define "damage", then point to the line where it starts. Some would say
"damage" includes any degree of non-sobriety. Or is it emotional
dependance?  Physical dependance? If I become psychologically dependent
on my Ventolin inhaler, prscribed to treat a real condition, am I
abusing Ventolin?

-- 
In fourteen months I've only smiled once and I didn't do it consciously

In article <gbqkh1$300l$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
 richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
> In article ,
> Sam Nelson  wrote:
> 
> >> >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
> >> >it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
> 
> >> If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
> >> makes it a pretty useless definition.
> 
> >Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as anything
> >other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.
> 
> Yes, that would follow from your definition of "abuse".  But I don't
> think that's a good definition, because "abuse" suggests "bad", and
> "using something for other than its intended purpose" isn't
> necessarily bad.

Modulo newly-discovered uses for a drug (and apparently thalidomide has
recently been rehabilitated) and hence the development of new intended
purposes, the use of a drug for anything other than its intended purpose
is by definition bad.  I don't see much point in debating the difference
between the meanings of `abuse' and `misuse'.  Do paedophiles misuse
children?
-- 
SAm.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:02:47 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:

> Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.

Eh? People use it as a recreational drug, therefore it is a recreational
drug. It may not be licensed or legal as a recreational drug, but that's
hardly the point.


-- 
Sometimes the mind, for reasons we don't necessarily understand,
just decides to go to the store for a quart of milk.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:28:01 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:

> In article ,
>  Alex Buell  writes:

<snip>

>> Yes there is. What's the difference between an alcoholic and a person
>> who drinks socially? It's the same thing. 
> 
> The former is using the product in a way it wasn't designed to be used.
> The latter isn't.

So what's cannabis designed to be used for? Is using Aspirin for purposes
other than pain relief abuse? What about Warfarin?


-- 
You don't know nothing
and you don't really care.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:25:10 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:

<snip>

> Do any of the people that produce alcoholic beverages actually intend
> their customers to damage themselves with it?  I think probably not.

I doubt that they give a shit. The companies exist to make money. As an
alcoholic I give them far more income than the average drinker, even if I
die young.


-- 
Daddy's got a pop gun.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:32:07 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:

<snip>

> the use of a drug for anything other than its intended purpose
> is by definition bad.

What definition is this, then?


-- 
You've made your bed
and now you must eat it

In uk.misc,  (Sam Nelson) wrote in ::

>In article ,
> Peter Ward  writes:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:02:47 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <gbqc4o$2tfp$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>> > richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>> >> In article ,
>> >> Sam Nelson  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
>> >> >it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
>> >> 
>> >> If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
>> >> makes it a pretty useless definition.
>> >
>> >Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as anything
>> >other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.
>> 
>> Bollocks!  Heroin is a drug.
>
>With you so far...
>
><<full stop
>
>Patronising jerk.
>
>> It can be used as a painkiller, or it can be used recreationally, and for
>> all I know it may have other uses.
>
>It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.  Nothing else.
>
>> None of these is, of itself, abuse.
>
>Any use other than as a painkiller is abuse.  Harold Shipman used it
>as a murder weapon, apparently.
>
>> However
>> both recreational and painkilling usage can develop to an abusive
>> level.
>
>If it's being used as a painkiller, it's presumably under the direction
>of a healthcare professional of some sort, and used as directed in these
>circumstances cannot possibly be abuse.

Erm- to be fair, *you* brought up Shipman.  
-- 
Marc

A friend is someone you'd spend an hour with if you had a day to live, not an hour to kill.

In uk.misc,  (Hot Badger Deluxe) wrote in
<14otclsj0ekpp$.ujt4d7qmmanc.dlg@40tude.net>::

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:02:47 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>
>> Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.
>
>Eh? People use it as a recreational drug, therefore it is a recreational
>drug. It may not be licensed or legal as a recreational drug, but that's
>hardly the point.

And used opiates as recreational *and* medical drugs 5,000 years before
heroin.
-- 
Marc

A friend is someone you'd spend an hour with if you had a day to live, not an hour to kill.

In uk.misc,  (Sam Nelson) wrote in ::

>In article <gbqkh1$300l$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
> richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>> In article ,
>> Sam Nelson  wrote:
>> 
>> >> >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
>> >> >it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
>> 
>> >> If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
>> >> makes it a pretty useless definition.
>> 
>> >Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as anything
>> >other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.
>> 
>> Yes, that would follow from your definition of "abuse".  But I don't
>> think that's a good definition, because "abuse" suggests "bad", and
>> "using something for other than its intended purpose" isn't
>> necessarily bad.
>
>Modulo newly-discovered uses for a drug (and apparently thalidomide has
>recently been rehabilitated) and hence the development of new intended
>purposes, the use of a drug for anything other than its intended purpose
>is by definition bad.  I don't see much point in debating the difference
>between the meanings of `abuse' and `misuse'.  Do paedophiles misuse
>children?

On those grounds, medical marijuana is "abuse".  It's a new application
for an old recreational drug.

Your definition of what constitutes "abuse" (and for that matter,
"drug") is very modern/Western.

Every culture, once it gets beyond basic survival (and sometimes even
before) finds a way for its people to get shit-faced, or otherwise
modify their mental states.  It's a fact; live with it.  Wine is a drug.
Tobacco is a drug.  Coffee is a drug.  Chocolate is a drug.

Governments don't like their citizens getting shit-faced, especially on
unapproved (and hence untaxed) choices of drug- it can lead to public
policy being questioned, and it's only a small step from there to
Visgoths at the gates.  Or something.

Most of the ills of drugs are due to their illegality.  People will get
off their faces whatever you do (and so will some animals) - it appears
to be a hardwired drive.  

There are no violent criminal gangs clashing over aspirin territories.
-- 
Marc

A friend is someone you'd spend an hour with if you had a day to live, not an hour to kill.

In article ,
Sam Nelson  wrote:

>Modulo newly-discovered uses for a drug (and apparently thalidomide has
>recently been rehabilitated) and hence the development of new intended
>purposes, the use of a drug for anything other than its intended purpose
>is by definition bad.

It is?  By definition of what?  Is this specific to drugs?

If I use a matchstick to lever up a stuck key on my keyboard, is this
unintended use bad?

Surely whether an unintended use is good or bad depends on what the
use is, and what its effects are.

-- Richard
-- 
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:32:07 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
> (and apparently thalidomide has
> recently been rehabilitated)

Not for the first time AIUI. Thalidomide is, it seems, something of a 
wonder drug - the only major problem with it is causing defects in 
unborn babies when taken by pregnant mothers at a certain time during 
the pregnancy...

The reason there were so many Thalidomide babies was it's (in hindsight, 
unfortunate) ability to cure morning sickness...

-- 
Cheers!
Ade.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:35:38 +0100, AdeV wrote:

> it's

Oops, sorry about that. Wasn't concentrating...

-- 
Cheers!
Ade.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:02:42 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2008-09-27, Alex Buell  wrote:
> 
>> There's a huge difference between a recreational user and a drug
>> abuser. 
> 
> No there isn't.

A drug abuser is someone that mainlines more smack than their doctor,
innit?

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:35:52 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:

[Heroin]

> It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.

The fuck.

It wasn't designed to be anything.  And I imagine most of the world's
production is intended for smackies.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

In uk.misc,  (AdeV) wrote in
::

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:32:07 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>> (and apparently thalidomide has
>> recently been rehabilitated)
>
>Not for the first time AIUI. Thalidomide is, it seems, something of a 
>wonder drug - the only major problem with it is causing defects in 
>unborn babies when taken by pregnant mothers at a certain time during 
>the pregnancy...
>
>The reason there were so many Thalidomide babies was it's (in hindsight, 
>unfortunate) ability to cure morning sickness...

Luckily, my mother was allergic to it.
-- 
Marc

A friend is someone you'd spend an hour with if you had a day to live, not an hour to kill.

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:35:52 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>
> [Heroin]
>
>> It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.
>
> The fuck.
>
> It wasn't designed to be anything. 

Well... It first syntheised by Bayer pahrmecucicals, as part of research
into opiate painkillers, and then marketed as such; the name Heroin was
a trademark of Bayer.

-- 
wharf rat

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:03 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:

> Every culture, once it gets beyond basic survival (and sometimes even
> before) finds a way for its people to get shit-faced, 

Hmmm.  All very plausible but many cultures never developed alcohol,
even though producing it is as easy as leaving a bit of fruit out to 
rot.  (Walk past the duff fruit heap on an apple farm and you may well
be falling over by the time you get to the end).

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:35:52 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:

>In article ,
> Peter Ward  writes:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:02:47 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <gbqc4o$2tfp$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>> > richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>> >> In article ,
>> >> Sam Nelson  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >Pretty much by definition, if you're using a drug for a purpose for which
>> >> >it was not produced, you are _abusing_ it.
>> >> 
>> >> If that's the definition, then there's nothing wrong with abuse, which
>> >> makes it a pretty useless definition.
>> >
>> >Eh?  Heroin is a painkiller, not a recreational drug.  Its use as anything
>> >other than a painkiller is therefore `abuse'.
>> 
>> Bollocks!  Heroin is a drug.
>
>With you so far...
>
><<full stop
>
>Patronising jerk.

You get what you deserve.

>> It can be used as a painkiller, or it can be used recreationally, and for
>> all I know it may have other uses.
>
>It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.  Nothing else.

Which is, of course, irrelevant to the point under discussion.  The
producers don't get to restrict its use.

I use a couple of chairs to set up my camera and album covers in order
to get photographs of them.  The tripod I use for the camera was
supplied with a telescope and has knobs for making unnecessarily fine
direction adjustments, as far as usage with the camera is concerned.
I use a bookcase to keep glasses in.  My council supplies me with a
green bag for putting garden waste in for disposal; I keep it in my
boot (the bag, not the waste) and put odds and ends of shopping in it,
stops them disappearing if they're small and keeps it all tidy in any
case.  I bought a roll-top rubbish bin to keep the large bags of rice
I buy in.

That's all abuse in your book, as the manufacturer never suggested
those uses.

>> None of these is, of itself, abuse.

>Any use other than as a painkiller is abuse.

Not necessarily.  Stuff is there to be used for whatever purposes
suit, not as dictated by someone else.

>Harold Shipman used it
>as a murder weapon, apparently.

This is, of course, irrelevant.

>> However
>> both recreational and painkilling usage can develop to an abusive
>> level.
>
>If it's being used as a painkiller, it's presumably under the direction
>of a healthcare professional of some sort, and used as directed in these
>circumstances cannot possibly be abuse.

Always?  Yeah, right.

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: home at peteward dot gotadsl dot co dot uk
I once met a real nice woman in Washington state, but she was Spokane for.
- Artyw

sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) writes:

> Do any of the people that produce alcoholic beverages actually
> intend their customers to damage themselves with it?  I think
> probably not.

That's why no-one sells bottles of snakebite.

Chris
-- 
Chris Eilbeck

"Chris Eilbeck"  wrote

>> Do any of the people that produce alcoholic beverages actually
>> intend their customers to damage themselves with it?  I think
>> probably not.
>
> That's why no-one sells bottles of snakebite.

Leave a glass of snakebite overnight and see what happens where the cider 
and lager meet.

*That's* why nobody sells it.

In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in <gbqsti$43h$1@aioe.org>::

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:03 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> Every culture, once it gets beyond basic survival (and sometimes even
>> before) finds a way for its people to get shit-faced, 
>
>Hmmm.  All very plausible but many cultures never developed alcohol,
>even though producing it is as easy as leaving a bit of fruit out to 
>rot.  (Walk past the duff fruit heap on an apple farm and you may well
>be falling over by the time you get to the end).

So what's your point?  I didn't say they all developed the *same* drug,
just that every culture has one.
-- 
Marc

A child of five could understand this!  Fetch me a child of five.

In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in <gbqrpp$va2$1@aioe.org>::

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:35:52 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>
>[Heroin]
>
>> It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.
>
>The fuck.
>
>It wasn't designed to be anything.  And I imagine most of the world's
>production is intended for smackies.

Well, actually, it was.  While heroin is made from opium, it's a
synthetic opiate, and was explicitly made because they were concerned
that morphine was too addictive (the irony).

In a sense, it was the first designer drug.
-- 
Marc

A child of five could understand this!  Fetch me a child of five.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:31:28 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:

> In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in <gbqrpp$va2$1@aioe.org>::
> 
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:35:52 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>>
>>[Heroin]
>>
>>> It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.
>>
>>The fuck.
>>
>>It wasn't designed to be anything.  And I imagine most of the world's
>>production is intended for smackies.
> 
> Well, actually, it was.  While heroin is made from opium, it's a
> synthetic opiate, and was explicitly made because they were concerned
> that morphine was too addictive (the irony).

It was discovered.  Just maybe if it had turned out like they hoped
then you might have a claim to it having been designed.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:32:17 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:

> In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in <gbqsti$43h$1@aioe.org>::
> 
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:03 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Every culture, once it gets beyond basic survival (and sometimes even
>>> before) finds a way for its people to get shit-faced, 
>>
>>Hmmm.  All very plausible but many cultures never developed alcohol,
>>even though producing it is as easy as leaving a bit of fruit out to 
>>rot.  (Walk past the duff fruit heap on an apple farm and you may well
>>be falling over by the time you get to the end).
> 
> So what's your point?  I didn't say they all developed the *same* drug,
> just that every culture has one.

Alright then - Aboriginals in Australia, what did they use to get 
shit-faced?  The point about alcohol is that it's the only one
that can be developed *anywhere* - everything else needs a specific
plant which only grows (or used to) in a specific area.  If you 
don't develop alcohol and you don't have native mind-zonging species
then you don't get shit-faced.  So even if the original Australians 
did have something then I'd still expect to find *somewhere* without
shit-facedness.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:31:28 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in <gbqrpp$va2$1@aioe.org>::
>> 
>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:35:52 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>>>
>>>[Heroin]
>>>
>>>> It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.
>>>
>>>The fuck.
>>>
>>>It wasn't designed to be anything.  And I imagine most of the world's
>>>production is intended for smackies.
>> 
>> Well, actually, it was.  While heroin is made from opium, it's a
>> synthetic opiate, and was explicitly made because they were concerned
>> that morphine was too addictive (the irony).
>
> It was discovered.  Just maybe if it had turned out like they hoped
> then you might have a claim to it having been designed.

It was discovered as part of resaerch into opiates.  I didn't claim it
was designed; but they sure as hell weren't looking for a hair tonic.

-- 
You've been licking his stamps and taking his dictation

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:56:36 +0100, August West wrote:

> It was discovered as part of resaerch into opiates.  I didn't claim it
> was designed; but they sure as hell weren't looking for a hair tonic.

Has anybody done the research?

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Marc Wilson wrote:
> In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in <gbqrpp$va2$1@aioe.org>::
> 
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:35:52 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>>
>> [Heroin]
>>
>>> It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.
>> The fuck.
>>
>> It wasn't designed to be anything.  And I imagine most of the world's
>> production is intended for smackies.
> 
> Well, actually, it was.  While heroin is made from opium, it's a
> synthetic opiate, and was explicitly made because they were concerned
> that morphine was too addictive (the irony).
> 
> In a sense, it was the first designer drug.

And the wrong answer to last night's question on University Challenge. 
Anyone else fall for that?

On 2008-09-29, Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:32:17 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in <gbqsti$43h$1@aioe.org>::
>> 
>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:03 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Every culture, once it gets beyond basic survival (and sometimes even
>>>> before) finds a way for its people to get shit-faced, 
>>>
>>>Hmmm.  All very plausible but many cultures never developed alcohol,
>>>even though producing it is as easy as leaving a bit of fruit out to 
>>>rot.  (Walk past the duff fruit heap on an apple farm and you may well
>>>be falling over by the time you get to the end).
>> 
>> So what's your point?  I didn't say they all developed the *same* drug,
>> just that every culture has one.
>
> Alright then - Aboriginals in Australia, what did they use to get 
> shit-faced? 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10437998


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

In uk.misc,  (Willy Eckerslyke) wrote in
::

>Marc Wilson wrote:
>> In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in <gbqrpp$va2$1@aioe.org>::
>> 
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:35:52 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>>>
>>> [Heroin]
>>>
>>>> It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.
>>> The fuck.
>>>
>>> It wasn't designed to be anything.  And I imagine most of the world's
>>> production is intended for smackies.
>> 
>> Well, actually, it was.  While heroin is made from opium, it's a
>> synthetic opiate, and was explicitly made because they were concerned
>> that morphine was too addictive (the irony).
>> 
>> In a sense, it was the first designer drug.
>
>And the wrong answer to last night's question on University Challenge. 
>Anyone else fall for that?

No- what was the question?
-- 
Marc

"There is only one boss, the customer. And he can fire everybody in
the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money
somewhere else." -- Sam Walton

Marc Wilson wrote:
> In uk.misc,  (Willy Eckerslyke) wrote in
> ::
> 
>> Marc Wilson wrote:
>>> In uk.misc,  (Fevric J Glandules) wrote in <gbqrpp$va2$1@aioe.org>::
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:35:52 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [Heroin]
>>>>
>>>>> It is designed, produced, and intended for use as a painkiller.
>>>> The fuck.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't designed to be anything.  And I imagine most of the world's
>>>> production is intended for smackies.
>>> Well, actually, it was.  While heroin is made from opium, it's a
>>> synthetic opiate, and was explicitly made because they were concerned
>>> that morphine was too addictive (the irony).
>>>
>>> In a sense, it was the first designer drug.
>> And the wrong answer to last night's question on University Challenge. 
>> Anyone else fall for that?
> 
> No- what was the question?

Something along the lines of  "what was the painkiller developed by 
Bayer".  There may have been a date mentioned.
The answer was Aspirin.

In message <gbqsti$43h$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
<fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:03 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> Every culture, once it gets beyond basic survival (and sometimes even
>> before) finds a way for its people to get shit-faced,
>
>Hmmm.  All very plausible but many cultures never developed alcohol,
>even though producing it is as easy as leaving a bit of fruit out to
>rot.  (Walk past the duff fruit heap on an apple farm and you may well
>be falling over by the time you get to the end).

Had better stuff available to get out their trees on, I'll wager.


-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message <gbrbqa$1do$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
<fevric@invalid.invalid> writes

>So even if the original Australians
>did have something then I'd still expect to find *somewhere* without
>shit-facedness.

Do the Eskimos have anything?

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In article , nothingread@hotmail.com 
says...
> In message <gbrbqa$1do$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
> <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
> 
> >So even if the original Australians
> >did have something then I'd still expect to find *somewhere* without
> >shit-facedness.
> 
> Do the Eskimos have anything?

Amanita, apparently.
http://www.amanitashop.com/amanitas-inuit.htm

Amethyst Deceiver  writes:

> In article , nothingread@hotmail.com 
> says...
>> In message <gbrbqa$1do$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules 
>> <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
>> 
>> >So even if the original Australians
>> >did have something then I'd still expect to find *somewhere* without
>> >shit-facedness.
>> 
>> Do the Eskimos have anything?
>
> Amanita, apparently.
> http://www.amanitashop.com/amanitas-inuit.htm

Get shit-faced on shaman piss? 
I think I'll stick with the beer.

-- 
don't look down

And August West  was like:

> Get shit-faced on shaman piss? 
> I think I'll stick with the beer.

There are pubs where the distinction is moot.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Text passed for distribution as an aid to the Dark cause

In message , Amethyst 
Deceiver  writes
>In article , nothingread@hotmail.com
>says...
>> In message <gbrbqa$1do$1@aioe.org>, Fevric J Glandules
>> <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes
>>
>> >So even if the original Australians
>> >did have something then I'd still expect to find *somewhere* without
>> >shit-facedness.
>>
>> Do the Eskimos have anything?
>
>Amanita, apparently.
>http://www.amanitashop.com/amanitas-inuit.htm

mmmm, reindeer piss

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk