Amazing album. Excessive heroin really helped their creative process.

I found it had a realist narrative. It gave what I'm assuming are facts about steroid use, and compared them in terms of relative danger and public perception with performance enhancing drugs in non-sport fields. On the whole I'd say the conclusion most people would draw from the movie alone is that steroids are kinda okay. That could either be because that is a logical conclusion, or that the director was biased. The fact that a certain conclusion comes out of something doesn't indicate bias. It may indicate a lack of general knowledge beforehand.

That said, one of the stats was clearly henpecked: when he gave the list of drugs that lead to emergency room visits, naturally drugs that are more commonly used are going to cause more emergency room visits. I don't think it's contentious that heroin is worse for an individual than alcohol, but alcohol is still #1 in emergency admissions because of its prevalence. So steroids down at #142 or whatever doesn't mean it's safer than Aspirin. Same with the stat comparing number of deaths. To be meaningful, those numbers have to be scaled with the prevalence of their use in the population, and it would also be nice to see them weighted by amount of use. I'm betting the 3 deaths attributed to steroids were by mega-juicers.>> ^Kofi:

I really didn't like this doco. There is an underlying apologist narrative for steroid use that fails to acknowledge many of the implications that go along with the practice.

Hey everybody...it's ok that Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict because it is an addictive drug.

Don't forget the part when Bush started an unconstitutional and ongoing war that's mounted our debt so high our children's great great great grandchildren won't even be finished paying it off.

When you want to talk like a big boy, you have to use your big boy brain, ok? Now go play with your Tonka trucks.>> ^quantumushroom:

What happened next?
Filth Clinton--once caught--confessed to screwing one of his interns (while the Red Chinese lifted our missile tech)
Creep Letterman confessed to screwing one of his employees
Marxist Hillary boasted of how she'd seize profits from an oil company
Failbama
Oh, that's right, Rush got addicted to painkillers more addictive than heroin. He's obviously the worst of the lot.

hey, we used to be the heroin capital a few years ago.>> ^chingalera:

>> ^lurgee:
I really loathe my CUNTry.

Hometown of Disneyland ain't shit compared to the crackdown party the cops'll have in Sunny Baltimore...

I started off with MJ and the Beach Boys at age 5. Then around 2nd grade it was Vanilla Ice & MC Hammer. Then 3rd it became Ice-T, NWA, Ice Cube. 4th grade it became Morbid Angel, Cannibal Corpse. 5th Grade it was Kyuss, Jesus Lizard, Melvins, Nirvana. 6th grade it was local punk bands, Lookout! Records, Minor Threat, Rancid... 7th grade I delved into the heart of Legendary DIY underground punk music. Ebullition records (Econochrist, Born against, Downcast, Spitboy, Iconoclast, Los Crudos), , Gravity Records (Heroin, Angel Hair, Antioch Arrow, Clikatat Ikatowi), Dischord (Fugazi, Hoover, Rites of Spring). The list goes on and on. The next ten years were all about underground hardcore/punk/noise/power-violence/sludge/grind/doom.

Then I moved to San Francisco. LOL. I'm an Aquarius. AQUARIUS RECORDS!!!!! I still listen to some of that stuff from time to time. A LOT of it was way ahead of it's time. These kids these days can't hold a candle to genuine, innovative, raw DIY music.

Opiates are evil stuff, they make you feel like nothing really matters, that pink cloud.. I turn in to a ahole, i start stealing and treating the closest like crap. Fast addiction, fastest curve on any drug i've done. Absolutely wonderful if taken correctly, very hard to control and tolerance builds up fast making it also dangerous. Personally, i've been always uppers-man but heroin is the only one from the downer world that i could picture getting in trouble with. I keep my distance with it and have eradicated all h users from my life: you can't trust an opiate junkie, they WILL steal from you and snitch you up (the downside of that pink cloud, it clouds your morals big time...)

Oh, and prepare for constipation. That is no joke, watch what you eat, take a LOT of fibers and remember to keep yourself hydrated.

I think we've been through it before. I think your point is bad and you should feel bad about it, and I didn't really want to get back into it.

You want to shelter your kids, that's also bad.

Porn is not inherently bad, although there's certainly abuse within the system - it attracts the "bad crowds". There's certainly mainstream porn I don't particularly like, like the humiliating type. That's just offputting to me. But the what I like, isn't what everyone else likes.

In a healthy relationship, or in a healthy single life, porn is used intermittently when you feel the need for it. I still watch my share of porn, but far less than when I was single. I naturally stopped watching it, because I didn't really feel like it. My lovely wife, @Lann, doesn't care what I watch. Hell, she even approves, although our tastes are different. Just because your wife doesn't like you watching porn, and that's a totally fair point I'll agree, that doesn't mean that porn is bad - it means that you guys need to figure that out. Like if your wife doesn't like taking public transportation, you could get her a car, and not claim that busses are bad.

Instant access to porn or other immediate "highs" aren't inherently bad either. Our evolutionary process is working too slow to keep up with our technological progress. We need to be able to control ourselves in the same way that we have to control our intake of sugar, since our bodies aren't made for it.

Even though you probably don't want it from me, I'll give you some advice on the kids as well. Teach them about porn the same way you teach them about action movies. It's a movie, just because Will Smith jumps a car at full speed and can jump our of a building and survive, doesn't mean you should - in the same way, your little baby girl probably shouldn't try to do the Houston 500. In fact, I recommend not to.

They way you speak of porn, it's as if it's addictive like fucking heroin, and I just don't think that has any hold in reality. I'm sure it can be like that for some people, but I think that's just poor willpower, and I don't pity that.

>> ^spoco2:

Why am I not surprised that @gwiz665 downvoted my anti-porn comment?
And with no comment as to why, no reasoning. Classy.

heroine is the miracle cure for hair loss, apparently.

>> ^VoodooV:

im not saying she didn't screw up, just that we're asking the wrong people.
It's congress that made this stuff illegal in the first place. Instead of picking on the DEA, Congress should get off it's ass and..oh I don't know...be the leaders we elected them to be?

>> ^PalmliX:

Ummmm shouldn't we be blaming congress which passed the law making marijuana schedule 1 in the first place? According to US federal law, marijuana IS AS harmful as meth, crack, heroin etc... Her job is to enforce those laws which congress passes, not to critically analyze the latest science behind drug testing, is anyone really surprised then at the way she answered? In other words, don't hate the player hate the game.

QFT.

She's the head of the Drug ENFORCEMENT Agency, not the Drug Figure Out Which Drugs Are Worse Than Others Agency.

The Congressman said there are three possible answers. Or she could even offer a fourth: "I'm in law enforcement, and while I am aware of information about the relative dangers of various drugs, it's not my place to comment on the relative harm these drugs do."

But she doesn't say that. She takes a scientific position, albeit a weak one, and one outside the scope of her position as a police officer, which is that all Schedule I drugs are "bad". She then goes on, still outside the scope of her position, to express her belief on the reasons marijuana was made a Schedule I drug. Then she agrees that Heroin is more addictive that marijuana. Then she claims that prescription drugs are "VERY addictive", indicating she's aware that there are varying levels of addictiveness among different substances.

Anyone offering the "She's just a cop" defence, you have to apply the same defence to everything she says, and it doesn't stick. She knows the facts when she's on her talking point, but doesn't even acknowledge that the facts exist when asked something against her talking point. Intellectually dishonest.>> ^VoodooV:

Yeah I hate to say it but I agree that it's not completely fair to her. You're asking an enforcement officer about science and to make an analysis/judgement of which drugs are worse/better. We pay them to enforce the law, not to understand the law.
It's congress that says these things are bad. It's really a question for congress and not the DEA.
That said, you would think that the top director of drug enforcement would have some idea of which ones are worse and which aren't

Ummmm shouldn't we be blaming congress which passed the law making marijuana schedule 1 in the first place? According to US federal law, marijuana IS AS harmful as meth, crack, heroin etc... Her job is to enforce those laws which congress passes, not to critically analyze the latest science behind drug testing, is anyone really surprised then at the way she answered? In other words, don't hate the player hate the game.

(I'm just 6 minutes too late to submit this one!)

Found this on Dangerous Minds:

Why is someone as blinkered as Michelle Leonhart serving as a top DEA administrator? Her opinion about marijuana being as dangerous as other illegal drugs like heroin, crack, or meth hardly rises to the level of superstition let alone any kind of objective science.

This dumbass obviously has no idea what she is talking about. This is an infuriating display of complete idiocy and willful ignorance. Or else she’s just lying and stonewalling with the DEA party line, of course, but the “deer in the headlights” uncomprehending look on her face as she’s being grilled probably indicates that she’s being sincere. And stupid. Via The Raw Story:

During a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart repeatedly refused to admit that anything was more addictive or harmful than marijuana.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado pressed Leonhart on whether illegal drugs like methamphetamine and crack, as well as legal prescription drugs, caused greater harm to public health compared to marijuana. But within a three minute time-span, Leonhart dodged his questions eleven times.

“Is crack worse for a person than marijuana?” Polis, who has called for an end to marijuana prohibition, asked.

“I believe all illegal drugs are bad,” Leonhart responded.

“Is methamphetamine worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?” Polis continued. “Is heroin worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?”

“Again, all drugs,” Leonhart began to say, only to be cut off by Polis.

“Yes, no, or I don’t know?” Polis said. “If you don’t know this, you can look this up. As the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency, I’m asking a very straightforward question.”


If Leonhart REALLY doesn’t know the difference between pot and crack and their respective effects on the human body, as her answers would seem to indicate, may I suggest she actually TRY the drugs that she has no idea about and form a sensible opinion? Or maybe check in with some longtime pot smokers and some longtime crack heads or toothless meth addicts so she can see the difference? Or would that just be too easy? (31 years of daily pot smoking for me, I’ll meet with Leonhart happily and even subject myself to medical testing. I am a definitive study of one, trust me.)

Public opinion should force people like Leonhart out of their jobs where they have too much control over the lives of others. She was appointed by Bush and re-appointed by Obama in 2010. She’s an embarrassment to both administrations. A buffoon. An ignoramous. There wasn’t a person in the room—even the Republicans—who was impressed by this woman’s astonishing lack of expertise (and therefore NOTABLE lack of qualifications for her position). How could anyone be impressed by her performance on Capital Hill? She should be fired immediately.

“Is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana?” It’s not a trick question! The answer is YES, for fuck’s sake. The average senior citizen has a more enlightened approach than this DEA clownjob. WHAT are this woman’s qualifications for her job, anyway? A pulse?

Bring the goddamn drug laws into the 21st century, PLEASE. This is just getting to be so fucking stupid.

Kudos to Rep Jared Polis of Colorado for so doggedly exposing this nonsense. We need more like him in Congress.

"capturing the dragon" eh? Someone has played Heroin Hero

It's all a fraud, but a voluntary one. The CSA is unscientific and doesn't abide by its own classifications... but has been adopted by the States, who now don't question it.

Since 2003, the US Govt, through the DHHS, owns a patent on Cannabidiol - a main ingredient in the cannabis plant and component of the smoke from combustion of the plant -- thus invalidating the claim against medicinal value. Patent Number 6630507. So why is it illegal? Guess who is in charge of authorizing the studies?

You will have to look it up, because for all intents and purposes it is actually the DEA who sets AND enforces drug policy in our country. (of course, they swear they are just followin the orders which come right from our citizens! they are doin the good work by keepin us from getting free medicine. don't you remember asking them to ruin your life just for fun?)

The current DEA director LYINGHEART actively blocks all attempts at scientific discourse regarding marijuana, yet screams the sky is falling because of synthetic cannabinoids that have been available for over a decade, proving that the DEA is up its own ass, at least partially enough to block hearing and sight. They can still smell pot smoke though.


Marijuana is not a drug. The plant isnt a drug. The chemicals inside it are... and they have medicinal value. So why make the plant illegal? Because its free. Number one, period.

prescription pain killer abuse is at an all time high and rising with the population... so one has to question the motivations of people who keep a free effective drug illegal. The most therapeutically safe substance known to man is classified with Heroin in terms of impact on health and society. That alone should be a warning flag to any thinking citizen.

Sickening, yet the only logical conclusion in light of all the facts.

Never drank, never smoked, never did illegal substances....and I don't feel superior to people who drink and some illegal substances. I actually admire them if they can balance it into their life and it brings them some happiness.

I can't stand smoking, I grew up around it, had all but one grandparent die because of smoking giving them lung issues that either ultimately killed them or prevented them from getting procedures done to stop heart problems. Weak lungs would have guaranteed their death during surgery and no one would operate. So, I don't feel superior to them, but I'm an asthmatic it smells horrible, so I just can't be around them. Hell as I got older I had to quit hanging around with a friend of mine until he quit smoking because he just smoked more and more and I couldn't take being around him. Allergies, etc. Plus anytime he smoked I had to be away from him, so the more he smoked the less point there was to trying to hang out.

Illegal substances, mixed bag. Marijuana, not really a huge deal to me...I know too many functional people who use it. However I have a brother who is absolutely obsessed with marijuana, and it's obviously not beneficial to him due to that control it has over him. Cocaine, meth, heroin, etc....just seems like pissing money away for health issues you'll have to deal with later...plus a lot of substances age you prematurely or make your teeth fall out, etc. And teeth falling is something I've had nightmares about, so why the hell would I want to do that.

And I *KNOW* I have an addictive personality, this is why I don't try these things. Not because I feel superior, in fact I don't like not being able to try alcohol in particularly. I just know I would slowly slide into over-use on it. Plus most of it smells horrible, so as long as it smells horrible to me and I don't develop a taste for it...Im set.


I don't like Penn yelling/ranting like that to make his point, but I do think that they need to re-examine their drug policies. Because they seem less about drug control and more about people control, especially non-influential and poor people control. If it were about drug control, I think they'd be telling you that if they catch you on substances while driving you are out of a license immediately. Or if you commit a crime while on them, it's worse punishment. While if you're just on them and not doing anything of note.......then that's what you choose to do. I do get the argument on having to treat people who use substances.....but it's similar to people who overdose on scripts or over the counter stuff.

Rehabilitation does not happen anymore AFAIK, not like it used to. Now they work them for pennies on the dollar instead of paying minimum wage to regular workers. It's more for profit now than anything else, which I think is the real issue...they will find any law to enforce to get their populations and numbers up for profits.