I can save lives by being a dick on AskMe! June 26, 2006 9:58 AM Subscribe
that is an insanely stupid question, but there's no rule stating that stupid people can't get help, too. So yeah, the answerers in that thread suck.
posted by shmegegge at 10:01 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 10:01 AM on June 26, 2006
How many have you saved so far?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:03 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:03 AM on June 26, 2006
He's a knob. STOP
But what can you do? STOP
Good thing the horse wasn't drunk too. STOP
###
posted by GuyZero at 10:06 AM on June 26, 2006
But what can you do? STOP
Good thing the horse wasn't drunk too. STOP
###
posted by GuyZero at 10:06 AM on June 26, 2006
Looks like there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of that thread.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:07 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:07 AM on June 26, 2006
Since when is it being a dick to call a spade a spade? Nobody's being a dick in that thread but the original poster, klangston.
posted by jdroth at 10:09 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by jdroth at 10:09 AM on June 26, 2006
So the question is: 'my shithead friend who can't seem to show any degree of sense keeps getting arrested for driving under the influence, but wants to know if he can safely smoke pot while under probation"?
I can't believe that is an actual question.
I say that he should light up. Lord knows we need shitheads like that to continue being as stupid as they apparently are until the incompetent penal system puts them where they belong.
Based on the facts of the question, there is nothing wrong with answers which point out that this person is messed up and focused on the wrong issues in their query.
posted by dios at 10:13 AM on June 26, 2006
I can't believe that is an actual question.
I say that he should light up. Lord knows we need shitheads like that to continue being as stupid as they apparently are until the incompetent penal system puts them where they belong.
Based on the facts of the question, there is nothing wrong with answers which point out that this person is messed up and focused on the wrong issues in their query.
posted by dios at 10:13 AM on June 26, 2006
Bullshit, jdroth, though I wouldn't expect you to recognize how much of an unhelpful dick you're being. Do you think a rant on how the poster's friend may have killed you is really answering the question? If you do, you're a moron. If you don't, you willfully broke AskMe rules, making you a moron.
Sometimes, jdroth, your best option may be just shutting the fuck up if you can't deal with a question.
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on June 26, 2006
Sometimes, jdroth, your best option may be just shutting the fuck up if you can't deal with a question.
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on June 26, 2006
Wow, the question itself was almost satirical. I removed a few flagged comments, maybe it will calm down some.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:14 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:14 AM on June 26, 2006
I bow to your superior intellect, klangston. You continue to impress, as you have since you joined. I will go back to my moronic pastimes...
posted by jdroth at 10:17 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by jdroth at 10:17 AM on June 26, 2006
Dear AskMe: I have had problems doing stupid stuff. Should I point this loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger?
posted by dios at 10:17 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by dios at 10:17 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
i think most people are giving advice for something that wasn't asked. the guy's friend is going to court in two weeks, and just wanted to know if he was going to be tested then. i will have to assume that the op is handling the counseling of his dumfuk friend in re: dui.
face it, if the guy was smart enough ask his relatively specific question here, then he's smart enough to tell his friend that he was an asshole when he drove drunk.
is there anyone here who thinks the op feels his friend's behavior is acceptable? he even says that he was lucky no one was hurt.
posted by lester at 10:18 AM on June 26, 2006
face it, if the guy was smart enough ask his relatively specific question here, then he's smart enough to tell his friend that he was an asshole when he drove drunk.
is there anyone here who thinks the op feels his friend's behavior is acceptable? he even says that he was lucky no one was hurt.
posted by lester at 10:18 AM on June 26, 2006
the fudging of reality being done by the complainers here is almost satirical too
telling someone the truth about their situation is not moralizing
quite bluntly, those who protested and wiped these statements are enabling self-destructive behavior
posted by pyramid termite at 10:19 AM on June 26, 2006
telling someone the truth about their situation is not moralizing
quite bluntly, those who protested and wiped these statements are enabling self-destructive behavior
posted by pyramid termite at 10:19 AM on June 26, 2006
So the question is: 'my shithead friend who can't seem to show any degree of sense keeps getting arrested for driving under the influence, but wants to know if he can safely smoke pot while under probation"?
This is probably a first offense (4th degree as distinguished from 4th time). Not that that will temper anyone's outrage.
posted by jaysus chris at 10:22 AM on June 26, 2006
This is probably a first offense (4th degree as distinguished from 4th time). Not that that will temper anyone's outrage.
posted by jaysus chris at 10:22 AM on June 26, 2006
What guideline does it break?
posted by jessamyn at 12:20 PM CST on June 26
I'm going to go with this one:
Also, please try to keep the questions from being too specific or too stupid.
posted by dios at 10:22 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by jessamyn at 12:20 PM CST on June 26
I'm going to go with this one:
Also, please try to keep the questions from being too specific or too stupid.
posted by dios at 10:22 AM on June 26, 2006
Metafilter: your best option may be just shutting the fuck up
posted by dorisfromregopark at 10:22 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by dorisfromregopark at 10:22 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
I don't think the question broke the guidelines. I do think the OP's further (undeleted) responses in the thread break the guidelines. Calling someone an "AskMe whore" is both obnoxious and counter-productive -- if you don't like the people who give answers on AskMe, why the hell are you asking your question here?
posted by occhiblu at 10:24 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by occhiblu at 10:24 AM on June 26, 2006
Dear AskMe: I have had problems doing stupid stuff. Should I point this loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger?
What caliber are you using?
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:27 AM on June 26, 2006
What caliber are you using?
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:27 AM on June 26, 2006
Well, I hate to agree with Dios, but there it is: it's a stupid question from a stupid person who wants to know how they can do more harm to society. That it stands while our comments are deleted is sort of disturbing.
posted by jon_kill at 10:28 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by jon_kill at 10:28 AM on June 26, 2006
I agree with dios on this one. What a fucking moron.
posted by puke & cry at 10:28 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 10:28 AM on June 26, 2006
I guess I can kind of understand the formalist admin approach, limiting the answers very carefully to the scope of the question asked, but why is baphomet's asshole "askme whore" comment not deleted while the much more polite comments of several others were?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:31 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:31 AM on June 26, 2006
Should I point this loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger?
don't do it, dios
posted by matteo at 10:32 AM on June 26, 2006
don't do it, dios
posted by matteo at 10:32 AM on June 26, 2006
why is baphomet's asshole "askme whore" comment not deleted while the much more polite comments of several others were?
For some reason there is a strong emphasis placed on not hurting the questioners feelings.
posted by jon_kill at 10:32 AM on June 26, 2006
For some reason there is a strong emphasis placed on not hurting the questioners feelings.
posted by jon_kill at 10:32 AM on June 26, 2006
fandango_matt: "Here's another "Help me break the law" question on AskMeta."
No, actually, that's not what the question is at all. Read it again. The asker wants to object to the (possibly) illegal action, but is asking for help coming up with a cogent argument.
posted by Plutor at 10:33 AM on June 26, 2006
No, actually, that's not what the question is at all. Read it again. The asker wants to object to the (possibly) illegal action, but is asking for help coming up with a cogent argument.
posted by Plutor at 10:33 AM on June 26, 2006
...until the incompetent penal system puts them where they belong.
Goddamn lawyers, eh?
posted by atrazine at 10:33 AM on June 26, 2006
Goddamn lawyers, eh?
posted by atrazine at 10:33 AM on June 26, 2006
* What crawled up your ass, klangklangston? Isn't it possible that people were responding out of genuine concern and a desire to help? Why do you think that deserves the "dick" and "moron" and "shut the fuck up" treatment?
* Here's a better analogy, dios: "I was playing Russian roulette, but the cops caught me with the (unlicensed) gun. I want to keep playing (after all, there are still four empty chambers). If I keep pulling the trigger, will the court find out about it and take away my gun? (Please limit your answers to this question -- I don't want any "judgemental" pricks getting in the way of my adrenaline rush)."
* is there anyone here who thinks the op feels his friend's behavior is acceptable?
I do.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:34 AM on June 26, 2006
* Here's a better analogy, dios: "I was playing Russian roulette, but the cops caught me with the (unlicensed) gun. I want to keep playing (after all, there are still four empty chambers). If I keep pulling the trigger, will the court find out about it and take away my gun? (Please limit your answers to this question -- I don't want any "judgemental" pricks getting in the way of my adrenaline rush)."
* is there anyone here who thinks the op feels his friend's behavior is acceptable?
I do.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:34 AM on June 26, 2006
monju_bosatsu - because it's not politically correct to tell a person whose alcohol abuse has gotten him in legal trouble that he has to give up pot and if he has a problem doing that, then he may need real help
posted by pyramid termite at 10:36 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by pyramid termite at 10:36 AM on June 26, 2006
it's a stupid question from a stupid person who wants to know how they can do more harm to society. That it stands while our comments are deleted is sort of disturbing.
that's the whole point. so many of the non-technical askmefi questions are just ridiculous -- the entertainment is in the freak show factor. just like metatalk, little more than a freak-show heaven for our insincere, passive-aggressive, cry-baby nannies and wannabe moderators
posted by matteo at 10:36 AM on June 26, 2006
that's the whole point. so many of the non-technical askmefi questions are just ridiculous -- the entertainment is in the freak show factor. just like metatalk, little more than a freak-show heaven for our insincere, passive-aggressive, cry-baby nannies and wannabe moderators
posted by matteo at 10:36 AM on June 26, 2006
Fandango-matt: the question you linked to actually asks for advice on how to talk someone out of breaking the law.
I agree that many of the responses in the DUI thread did not answer the question, but have to admit that the second I read the question I knew baphomet was going to catch hell. If I were inclined to ask a similar question here (I would actually ask one of my attorney friends instead) I would shut up and take my lumps, hoping there were some useful answers mixed in with all of the lectures and moral outrage.
posted by TedW at 10:38 AM on June 26, 2006
I agree that many of the responses in the DUI thread did not answer the question, but have to admit that the second I read the question I knew baphomet was going to catch hell. If I were inclined to ask a similar question here (I would actually ask one of my attorney friends instead) I would shut up and take my lumps, hoping there were some useful answers mixed in with all of the lectures and moral outrage.
posted by TedW at 10:38 AM on June 26, 2006
of course, in russian roulette you can only kill yourself
posted by poppo at 10:42 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by poppo at 10:42 AM on June 26, 2006
unless someone is standing behind you, but they would probably deserve it I guess
posted by poppo at 10:43 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by poppo at 10:43 AM on June 26, 2006
lester writes "is there anyone here who thinks the op feels his friend's behavior is acceptable?"
I'm not sure that baphomet thinks the behavior was "acceptable," but he sure doesn't really seem to be examining the larger consequences of the actions. There's nothing in the question or in any of the shitty follow-ups that suggests that baphomet considers the behavior a big deal in anything but the most legalistic sense. If you're gonna ask a question like this a bit of contrition, even false, might go a long way toward warding off people's completely understandable intial reactions of disgust.
posted by OmieWise at 10:46 AM on June 26, 2006
I'm not sure that baphomet thinks the behavior was "acceptable," but he sure doesn't really seem to be examining the larger consequences of the actions. There's nothing in the question or in any of the shitty follow-ups that suggests that baphomet considers the behavior a big deal in anything but the most legalistic sense. If you're gonna ask a question like this a bit of contrition, even false, might go a long way toward warding off people's completely understandable intial reactions of disgust.
posted by OmieWise at 10:46 AM on June 26, 2006
ND¢: I am pretty sure the "AskMe Whore" baphomet is referring to is me, probably referring to the fact that I am much more active in the Green than in the Blue.
posted by crazyray at 10:53 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by crazyray at 10:53 AM on June 26, 2006
That it stands while our comments are deleted is sort of disturbing.
I have to agree — although I'd substitute "inconsistent" for the hyperbolical "disturbing." I didn't see the deleted comments, but preachy derails are absolutely inevitable if you're going to allow the galactically stupid to query AskMe for advice on how to break laws; and it's foolish to pretend otherwise by nannying the thread. Either let people vent on the OP or delete the question altogether.
I vote for the latter.
posted by cribcage at 10:54 AM on June 26, 2006
I have to agree — although I'd substitute "inconsistent" for the hyperbolical "disturbing." I didn't see the deleted comments, but preachy derails are absolutely inevitable if you're going to allow the galactically stupid to query AskMe for advice on how to break laws; and it's foolish to pretend otherwise by nannying the thread. Either let people vent on the OP or delete the question altogether.
I vote for the latter.
posted by cribcage at 10:54 AM on June 26, 2006
Driving drunk, especially at twice the legal limit does have a serious possability of harming someone else, and he is being punished accordingly -- which he no doubt will. I find the marijuana issue to be completely separate, and a wholey provincial matter. Perhaps this is where the whole 'loaded gun' hyperboles are coming from. Is he really hurting society by lighting up? If the question was "My friend got a DUI but the night before the trial wants to get trashed because it's my other friend's birthday, should he?", I would join the dumbass choir. I think the problem is much more nuanced than "all substances which alter the mind are bad and in the same category, screw up in one screw up in them all." To me the two are mutually exclusive, with marijuana roughly as harmful as playing Oblivion for four hours after work -- completely unproductive but on a whole not bad.
posted by geoff. at 10:55 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by geoff. at 10:55 AM on June 26, 2006
Is he really hurting society by lighting up?
no ... but under his present circumstances, he is hurting himself
I think the problem is much more nuanced than "all substances which alter the mind are bad and in the same category, screw up in one screw up in them all."
but here's the thing ... he is facing a legal system that will test him for the pot and will treat him more harshly for using it ... if he's unable to quit under those circumstances, he's got a problem
posted by pyramid termite at 11:04 AM on June 26, 2006
no ... but under his present circumstances, he is hurting himself
I think the problem is much more nuanced than "all substances which alter the mind are bad and in the same category, screw up in one screw up in them all."
but here's the thing ... he is facing a legal system that will test him for the pot and will treat him more harshly for using it ... if he's unable to quit under those circumstances, he's got a problem
posted by pyramid termite at 11:04 AM on June 26, 2006
"with marijuana roughly as harmful as playing Oblivion for four hours after work -- completely unproductive but on a whole not bad."
Interesting concept...I could buy it had my son not been killed by a driver under the influence of maijuana...
but...interesting concept...
posted by HuronBob at 11:07 AM on June 26, 2006
Interesting concept...I could buy it had my son not been killed by a driver under the influence of maijuana...
but...interesting concept...
posted by HuronBob at 11:07 AM on June 26, 2006
I must be missing something, because all three of the first three answers before baphomet comes unhooked are answering his question (one without moralising, two with moralising). I know (and agree) that moralising instead of answering the question is horrible shit in AskMe, but this is moralising and answering the question.
I don't think the question should be deleted, I don't think baphomet should be roasted for asking it, but I think his not-providing-additional-information-but-just-yelling-at-people-for-answering-his-question-with-moralizing followup comments should be axed.
posted by Bugbread at 11:10 AM on June 26, 2006
I don't think the question should be deleted, I don't think baphomet should be roasted for asking it, but I think his not-providing-additional-information-but-just-yelling-at-people-for-answering-his-question-with-moralizing followup comments should be axed.
posted by Bugbread at 11:10 AM on June 26, 2006
Well, drinking isn't harmful to others until you do something like start driving. Likewise, marijuana. So no, the act of smoking it isn't harmful to society in and of itself. However, since the OP's friend seems incapable of drinking and then not driving, I find it a little hard to be charitable enough to assume he won't engage in dangerous activity when stoned.
posted by jon_kill at 11:11 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by jon_kill at 11:11 AM on June 26, 2006
God-fucking-damn it, can we keep the inline images to maybe less than 1000 pixels?
It's like I'm on fucking mySpace.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:11 AM on June 26, 2006
It's like I'm on fucking mySpace.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:11 AM on June 26, 2006
HuronBob : "Interesting concept...I could buy it had my son not been killed by a driver under the influence of maijuana..."
Respectfully, I think that geoff's comment was just about smoking marijuana, not about smoking and driving.
posted by Bugbread at 11:12 AM on June 26, 2006
Respectfully, I think that geoff's comment was just about smoking marijuana, not about smoking and driving.
posted by Bugbread at 11:12 AM on June 26, 2006
ND¢: I am pretty sure the "AskMe Whore" baphomet is referring to is me, probably referring to the fact that I am much more active in the Green than in the Blue.
posted by crazyray at 1:53 PM EST on June 26 [+fave] [!]
If you had to label someone's choice of what part of the Metafilter rainbow they chose to concentrate most on with a term that evokes someone's sexual behaviour, I would think that askme slut would be more appropriate. A slut merely has sex frequently, while a whore is paid to engage in sex. It seems you are being denigrated for participating in askme frequently, not being paid to participate in askme.
posted by ND¢ at 11:13 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by crazyray at 1:53 PM EST on June 26 [+fave] [!]
If you had to label someone's choice of what part of the Metafilter rainbow they chose to concentrate most on with a term that evokes someone's sexual behaviour, I would think that askme slut would be more appropriate. A slut merely has sex frequently, while a whore is paid to engage in sex. It seems you are being denigrated for participating in askme frequently, not being paid to participate in askme.
posted by ND¢ at 11:13 AM on June 26, 2006
"Well, I hate to agree with Dios, but there it is: it's a stupid question from a stupid person who wants to know how they can do more harm to society. That it stands while our comments are deleted is sort of disturbing."
Except that a) it's not the person who had the DUI asking, b) smoking pot is a far cry from "harm to society."
And THAT'S why I object to the morality police here— they don't bother to read the fucking question before spouting off. They just want to wear their MAD pins and trot out a little bit of condemnation.
"because it's not politically correct to tell a person whose alcohol abuse has gotten him in legal trouble that he has to give up pot and if he has a problem doing that, then he may need real help"
Oh, bullshit. Political correctness has nothing to do with it, and bringing it up is a smarmy way of insulating you from having to defend your statements. Alcohol ABUSE? Y'know, it's possible to both be over the legal limit without abusing alcohol and it's possible to drive while over the legal limit without that being alcohol abuse. Is it, in general, good? No. Are there very strict laws to deal with that? Yes.
If you want to bring "political correctness" into this, then it's you who's playing by its strictures: It is "politically correct" to demonize all drunk driving and all illegal activities.
"There's nothing in the question or in any of the shitty follow-ups that suggests that baphomet considers the behavior a big deal in anything but the most legalistic sense."
Arguably because smoking pot is not a big deal in anything but the most legalistic sense.
I understand that visceral reactions are part of the dialogue over drunk driving. I also believe that those who cannot hold back their visceral reactions in order to give the asker advice on the very specific question he was asking are doing a grave diservice to AskMe. That is the bug up my ass: a bunch of morons in some sort of morality circlejerk, adding superfluous condemnation to a question that can be pretty simply answered with a single word.
posted by klangklangston at 11:13 AM on June 26, 2006
Except that a) it's not the person who had the DUI asking, b) smoking pot is a far cry from "harm to society."
And THAT'S why I object to the morality police here— they don't bother to read the fucking question before spouting off. They just want to wear their MAD pins and trot out a little bit of condemnation.
"because it's not politically correct to tell a person whose alcohol abuse has gotten him in legal trouble that he has to give up pot and if he has a problem doing that, then he may need real help"
Oh, bullshit. Political correctness has nothing to do with it, and bringing it up is a smarmy way of insulating you from having to defend your statements. Alcohol ABUSE? Y'know, it's possible to both be over the legal limit without abusing alcohol and it's possible to drive while over the legal limit without that being alcohol abuse. Is it, in general, good? No. Are there very strict laws to deal with that? Yes.
If you want to bring "political correctness" into this, then it's you who's playing by its strictures: It is "politically correct" to demonize all drunk driving and all illegal activities.
"There's nothing in the question or in any of the shitty follow-ups that suggests that baphomet considers the behavior a big deal in anything but the most legalistic sense."
Arguably because smoking pot is not a big deal in anything but the most legalistic sense.
I understand that visceral reactions are part of the dialogue over drunk driving. I also believe that those who cannot hold back their visceral reactions in order to give the asker advice on the very specific question he was asking are doing a grave diservice to AskMe. That is the bug up my ass: a bunch of morons in some sort of morality circlejerk, adding superfluous condemnation to a question that can be pretty simply answered with a single word.
posted by klangklangston at 11:13 AM on June 26, 2006
the op's friend was arrested for alcohol ... not pot. the friend's stated problem is with alcohol, not pot.
the question asked about what kind of drug testing the op's friend could experience.
when the op says 'regardless', he is intentionally attempting to set aside the argument about the morality of duis--and asks askme to answer a specific question: drug testing at the court date, and later through probation.
so if you have an answer that can be useful--like mine was--then answer the question. otherwise, you are answering more then what the poster wants.
and that's what makes you an askme whore. when you answer unasked questions, offer useless advice, snark or try to be funny, you are an askme whore.
posted by lester at 11:15 AM on June 26, 2006
the question asked about what kind of drug testing the op's friend could experience.
when the op says 'regardless', he is intentionally attempting to set aside the argument about the morality of duis--and asks askme to answer a specific question: drug testing at the court date, and later through probation.
so if you have an answer that can be useful--like mine was--then answer the question. otherwise, you are answering more then what the poster wants.
and that's what makes you an askme whore. when you answer unasked questions, offer useless advice, snark or try to be funny, you are an askme whore.
posted by lester at 11:15 AM on June 26, 2006
"but here's the thing ... he is facing a legal system that will test him for the pot and will treat him more harshly for using it ... if he's unable to quit under those circumstances, he's got a problem"
Then tell him that. That's a fine answer. That's a good answer. What I was objecting to were paragraphs of ranting about how drunk drivers kill everything they touch and if this guy didn't stop smoking pot it was somehow going to make Jesus never be born. Most of those responses have now been relegated to the sin bin of AskMe.
(Which I guess means that I should stop arguing because I've largely won.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:17 AM on June 26, 2006
Then tell him that. That's a fine answer. That's a good answer. What I was objecting to were paragraphs of ranting about how drunk drivers kill everything they touch and if this guy didn't stop smoking pot it was somehow going to make Jesus never be born. Most of those responses have now been relegated to the sin bin of AskMe.
(Which I guess means that I should stop arguing because I've largely won.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:17 AM on June 26, 2006
Arguably because smoking pot is not a big deal in anything but the most legalistic sense.
There's the problem. As is so typical every time pot comes up in a discussion, the adamant "pot isn't a big deal; it should be legal" people can't engage in a straightforward discussion of the topic because their primary focus is to try to convince others that it is "no big deal."
Whether it is or is objectively not a big deal, is irrelevant. It is illegal. That makes it a big deal. Especially when you are already in criminal trouble.
posted by dios at 11:19 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
There's the problem. As is so typical every time pot comes up in a discussion, the adamant "pot isn't a big deal; it should be legal" people can't engage in a straightforward discussion of the topic because their primary focus is to try to convince others that it is "no big deal."
Whether it is or is objectively not a big deal, is irrelevant. It is illegal. That makes it a big deal. Especially when you are already in criminal trouble.
posted by dios at 11:19 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
if this guy didn't stop smoking pot it was somehow going to make Jesus never be born
There is a new one for me. I haven't seen that straw man before. I've seen the "square" one. And the "fascist" one. And the "conservative" one. And "nanny-stater". And lots of those. But thats the first time I have seen the straw man that people who don't have a problem with the illegality of pot are necessarily Christians. That's a new one for me.
posted by dios at 11:22 AM on June 26, 2006
There is a new one for me. I haven't seen that straw man before. I've seen the "square" one. And the "fascist" one. And the "conservative" one. And "nanny-stater". And lots of those. But thats the first time I have seen the straw man that people who don't have a problem with the illegality of pot are necessarily Christians. That's a new one for me.
posted by dios at 11:22 AM on June 26, 2006
"Whether it is or is objectively not a big deal, is irrelevant. It is illegal. That makes it a big deal. Especially when you are already in criminal trouble."
Begging the question. Jaywalking is illegal. It is not a big deal.
I would say the bad faith comes from your side, Dios. In this instance, no, he should not continue smoking pot. But that's because of the consequences, not because of the inherent action. Like, someone with a bench warrant might not want to jaywalk flagrantly. Or speed. Or do any of the other myriad illegal things that are simply not a big deal.
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 AM on June 26, 2006
Begging the question. Jaywalking is illegal. It is not a big deal.
I would say the bad faith comes from your side, Dios. In this instance, no, he should not continue smoking pot. But that's because of the consequences, not because of the inherent action. Like, someone with a bench warrant might not want to jaywalk flagrantly. Or speed. Or do any of the other myriad illegal things that are simply not a big deal.
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 AM on June 26, 2006
Y'know, it's possible to both be over the legal limit without abusing alcohol and it's possible to drive while over the legal limit without that being alcohol abuse.
bullshit ... if your use of alcohol endangers others it IS abuse
Arguably because smoking pot is not a big deal in anything but the most legalistic sense.
and actually, i never argued anything different ... but much of the scorn directed to the "moralizing" was based on the strong suggestion that he better put it down for now ... which goes against the philosophies of some people, that they should smoke pot if they want to
and that is where the political correctness comes in ... the refusal to admit that in some circumstances, it is totally inappropriate and in fact, self-destructive
posted by pyramid termite at 11:24 AM on June 26, 2006
bullshit ... if your use of alcohol endangers others it IS abuse
Arguably because smoking pot is not a big deal in anything but the most legalistic sense.
and actually, i never argued anything different ... but much of the scorn directed to the "moralizing" was based on the strong suggestion that he better put it down for now ... which goes against the philosophies of some people, that they should smoke pot if they want to
and that is where the political correctness comes in ... the refusal to admit that in some circumstances, it is totally inappropriate and in fact, self-destructive
posted by pyramid termite at 11:24 AM on June 26, 2006
"There is a new one for me. I haven't seen that straw man before. I've seen the "square" one. And the "fascist" one. And the "conservative" one. And "nanny-stater". And lots of those. But thats the first time I have seen the straw man that people who don't have a problem with the illegality of pot are necessarily Christians. That's a new one for me."
Jesus, Dios, if I didn't know better, I'd say you must have been high to read it like that.
posted by klangklangston at 11:24 AM on June 26, 2006
Jesus, Dios, if I didn't know better, I'd say you must have been high to read it like that.
posted by klangklangston at 11:24 AM on June 26, 2006
"the friend's stated problem is with alcohol, not pot".... But the problem we can deduce is that the friend has a problem with substances and has poor judgement...and in a manner that puts others at risk.
I think that the original question was stated in a manner that was bound to elicit the response it got... It came across as an arrogant dare of some sort...
We don't live on islands, the choices of others impact on us and on those we care about. To be silent about it is wrong. I could care less about folks doing a joint once in a while, but when it is someone that has already shown us that they make poor choices when under the influence of substances, then it should be confronted.
posted by HuronBob at 11:25 AM on June 26, 2006
I think that the original question was stated in a manner that was bound to elicit the response it got... It came across as an arrogant dare of some sort...
We don't live on islands, the choices of others impact on us and on those we care about. To be silent about it is wrong. I could care less about folks doing a joint once in a while, but when it is someone that has already shown us that they make poor choices when under the influence of substances, then it should be confronted.
posted by HuronBob at 11:25 AM on June 26, 2006
dios : "There's the problem. As is so typical every time pot comes up in a discussion, the adamant 'pot isn't a big deal; it should be legal' people can't engage in a straightforward discussion of the topic because their primary focus is to try to convince others that it is 'no big deal.'"
Er, no, that isn't the problem. Whether pot is or isn't a big deal shouldn't even come up, considering how the question was phrased. Whether pot supporters or pot detractors can engage in straightforward discussion or instead can only type "pumpernickel! Pumpernickel!" should not even be an issue when asked the question "He likes smokin' the ganj, but is concerned that they're going to make him piss after all his court stuff goes down. Should he puff away happily or pass on the pipe?"
posted by Bugbread at 11:26 AM on June 26, 2006
Er, no, that isn't the problem. Whether pot is or isn't a big deal shouldn't even come up, considering how the question was phrased. Whether pot supporters or pot detractors can engage in straightforward discussion or instead can only type "pumpernickel! Pumpernickel!" should not even be an issue when asked the question "He likes smokin' the ganj, but is concerned that they're going to make him piss after all his court stuff goes down. Should he puff away happily or pass on the pipe?"
posted by Bugbread at 11:26 AM on June 26, 2006
Then tell him that. That's a fine answer. That's a good answer.
yes ... and although it was more strongly worded in reply to baphomet's angry response to others, that's pretty much what i said
it got deleted anyway
posted by pyramid termite at 11:27 AM on June 26, 2006
yes ... and although it was more strongly worded in reply to baphomet's angry response to others, that's pretty much what i said
it got deleted anyway
posted by pyramid termite at 11:27 AM on June 26, 2006
and that's what makes you an askme whore. when you answer unasked questions, offer useless advice, snark or try to be funny, you are an askme whore.
Uh, no. As baphomet made clear in his comment, he called crazyray an "askme whore" because he doesn't contribute to other parts of the site much. And yes, baphomet's comment is still there. Why, exactly? Jess? Hello?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:32 AM on June 26, 2006
Uh, no. As baphomet made clear in his comment, he called crazyray an "askme whore" because he doesn't contribute to other parts of the site much. And yes, baphomet's comment is still there. Why, exactly? Jess? Hello?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:32 AM on June 26, 2006
"and actually, i never argued anything different ... but much of the scorn directed to the "moralizing" was based on the strong suggestion that he better put it down for now ... which goes against the philosophies of some people, that they should smoke pot if they want to"
Not from my end. The scorn toward the moralizing was based on people going out of their way to both insult the poster and his friend and to append all sorts of social ills to his behavior that were totally unwarranted.
"and that is where the political correctness comes in ... the refusal to admit that in some circumstances, it is totally inappropriate and in fact, self-destructive"
Again, that's not what political correctness means, and there were plenty of answers that said just that which I didn't object to.
"bullshit ... if your use of alcohol endangers others it IS abuse"
This is one of my biggest objections to Mill's On Liberty, where he makes the case for the state's regulation of liquor. By his measure, nearly all use of liquor is abuse, under a variety of tortured logical schemes, because it almost always endangers others.
The problem is that the quantification of endangering just can't hold as an axiomatic stance removed from context. People who drive tired are more likely to get into accidents than people who drive drunk, but their lack of sleep is not "abuse." Unintentional side-effects of medication can endanger other drivers, but I doubt that you'd hold them up as abusing their blood pressure pills.
Abuse is used here in a bit of puritanical demogogery absent from actual meaning. Driving while impaired does not imply abuse of the method of imparement, even while granting that the goal should be unimpared driving and that laws and stiff enforcement are needed to meet those goals.
posted by klangklangston at 11:34 AM on June 26, 2006
Not from my end. The scorn toward the moralizing was based on people going out of their way to both insult the poster and his friend and to append all sorts of social ills to his behavior that were totally unwarranted.
"and that is where the political correctness comes in ... the refusal to admit that in some circumstances, it is totally inappropriate and in fact, self-destructive"
Again, that's not what political correctness means, and there were plenty of answers that said just that which I didn't object to.
"bullshit ... if your use of alcohol endangers others it IS abuse"
This is one of my biggest objections to Mill's On Liberty, where he makes the case for the state's regulation of liquor. By his measure, nearly all use of liquor is abuse, under a variety of tortured logical schemes, because it almost always endangers others.
The problem is that the quantification of endangering just can't hold as an axiomatic stance removed from context. People who drive tired are more likely to get into accidents than people who drive drunk, but their lack of sleep is not "abuse." Unintentional side-effects of medication can endanger other drivers, but I doubt that you'd hold them up as abusing their blood pressure pills.
Abuse is used here in a bit of puritanical demogogery absent from actual meaning. Driving while impaired does not imply abuse of the method of imparement, even while granting that the goal should be unimpared driving and that laws and stiff enforcement are needed to meet those goals.
posted by klangklangston at 11:34 AM on June 26, 2006
huronbob: the op wasn't asking you to deduce his friend's problem--but you went ahead and did so anyway.
posted by lester at 11:35 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by lester at 11:35 AM on June 26, 2006
"Interesting concept...I could buy it had my son not been killed by a driver under the influence of maijuana...
but...interesting concept..."
Then you should admit that your reaction is biased and stay out of these discussions. Had your son been killed by a tired driver would you be against holding sleep to be no big deal?
posted by klangklangston at 11:37 AM on June 26, 2006
but...interesting concept..."
Then you should admit that your reaction is biased and stay out of these discussions. Had your son been killed by a tired driver would you be against holding sleep to be no big deal?
posted by klangklangston at 11:37 AM on June 26, 2006
Metafilter: A bit of puritanical demogogery absent from actual meaning
posted by Mr. Six at 11:37 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 11:37 AM on June 26, 2006
here's the argument as I see it.
crowd a are the people who want to lecture this kid about his substance and driving habits.
crowd b are the people who don't.
a: you shouldn't smoke pot and drive!
b: there's nothing wrong with pot, but yeah, don't do it till you know if you're going to be tested.
a: THERE'S EVERYTHING WRONG WITH POT! MY NEIGHBOR/SON/DAD/FRIEND WAS KILLED BY A DRUNK DRIVER/STONED DRIVER!
b: okay, but that's something wrong with driving under the influence. he's not asking about whether he should be driving under the influence, and the OP even demonstrates some small acknowledgement of how stupid the act is. he's just asking about smoking pot.
a: well, you have to expect that people are going to react this way, when he starts the question talking about drunk driving!
b: okay, well now you know, so you can stop derailing the thread.
a: the thread should be deleted! it's encouraging drug use and drunk driving!
b: what guideline does it break?
a: it's stupid!
b: are you serious?
a: MY SON/NEIGHBOR/DAD/FRIEND WAS HIT BY A DRUNK/STONED DRIVER!
b: *head aspoldes*
posted by shmegegge at 11:37 AM on June 26, 2006
crowd a are the people who want to lecture this kid about his substance and driving habits.
crowd b are the people who don't.
a: you shouldn't smoke pot and drive!
b: there's nothing wrong with pot, but yeah, don't do it till you know if you're going to be tested.
a: THERE'S EVERYTHING WRONG WITH POT! MY NEIGHBOR/SON/DAD/FRIEND WAS KILLED BY A DRUNK DRIVER/STONED DRIVER!
b: okay, but that's something wrong with driving under the influence. he's not asking about whether he should be driving under the influence, and the OP even demonstrates some small acknowledgement of how stupid the act is. he's just asking about smoking pot.
a: well, you have to expect that people are going to react this way, when he starts the question talking about drunk driving!
b: okay, well now you know, so you can stop derailing the thread.
a: the thread should be deleted! it's encouraging drug use and drunk driving!
b: what guideline does it break?
a: it's stupid!
b: are you serious?
a: MY SON/NEIGHBOR/DAD/FRIEND WAS HIT BY A DRUNK/STONED DRIVER!
b: *head aspoldes*
posted by shmegegge at 11:37 AM on June 26, 2006
Gee, I wonder what side of the pot question schmegegge falls on.
posted by dios at 11:38 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by dios at 11:38 AM on June 26, 2006
Which I guess means that I should stop arguing because I've largely won
Now that's revealing.
posted by bonaldi at 11:40 AM on June 26, 2006
Now that's revealing.
posted by bonaldi at 11:40 AM on June 26, 2006
"Now that's revealing."
Yeah, the most egregious comments were deleted, which is what I wanted.
META SECRETS REVEALED!
posted by klangklangston at 11:41 AM on June 26, 2006
Yeah, the most egregious comments were deleted, which is what I wanted.
META SECRETS REVEALED!
posted by klangklangston at 11:41 AM on June 26, 2006
Yeh, but you didn't see in terms of getting what you wanted, you said in terms of winning. Cos you see everything here as a fight.
posted by bonaldi at 11:46 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by bonaldi at 11:46 AM on June 26, 2006
Gee, I wonder what side of the pot question schmegegge falls on.
yes, I fall on the "pot should be held to the same standard as alcohol" side of the fence.
but speaking of who's on what side: I'm having trouble following the relevance of your argument in this case:
Whether it is or is objectively not a big deal, is irrelevant. It is illegal. That makes it a big deal. Especially when you are already in criminal trouble.
Now, if this were a court of law, I'd say "why yes, that makes perfect sense, and that's all there is to it." But since we're not in a court of law, and whether something is or is not illegal is not the metric by which we decide if a topic is worth discussing, I'm not sure I see what this has to do with what was asked or the topic of this meta post.
posted by shmegegge at 11:49 AM on June 26, 2006
yes, I fall on the "pot should be held to the same standard as alcohol" side of the fence.
but speaking of who's on what side: I'm having trouble following the relevance of your argument in this case:
Whether it is or is objectively not a big deal, is irrelevant. It is illegal. That makes it a big deal. Especially when you are already in criminal trouble.
Now, if this were a court of law, I'd say "why yes, that makes perfect sense, and that's all there is to it." But since we're not in a court of law, and whether something is or is not illegal is not the metric by which we decide if a topic is worth discussing, I'm not sure I see what this has to do with what was asked or the topic of this meta post.
posted by shmegegge at 11:49 AM on June 26, 2006
*force-feeds high yield pot brownies to dios*
Where's your dog now!? ONE OF US. ONE OF US.
posted by loquacious at 11:54 AM on June 26, 2006
Where's your dog now!? ONE OF US. ONE OF US.
posted by loquacious at 11:54 AM on June 26, 2006
So many people here love moralizing and expressing their righteous outrage that I think matt really ought to make a JudgeMe site. People would post provocative questions or just statements and then a bunch of other members could respond by calling them names or telling them to see a therapist. It'd probably get old fast for most people, but I have a feeling there'd be a core userbase who would keep it active.
posted by nixerman at 11:54 AM on June 26, 2006
posted by nixerman at 11:54 AM on June 26, 2006
"Cos you see everything here as a fight."
No, I see everything here as a holy crusade against the Jews who hold Jerusolem. And you see everything in terms of "getting what you want," because you're selfish and eat puppies. Modern psychology sez so.
Cortex: MY HEAD HURTS!
posted by klangklangston at 11:55 AM on June 26, 2006
No, I see everything here as a holy crusade against the Jews who hold Jerusolem. And you see everything in terms of "getting what you want," because you're selfish and eat puppies. Modern psychology sez so.
Cortex: MY HEAD HURTS!
posted by klangklangston at 11:55 AM on June 26, 2006
Why does it hurt? There's not much in there beyond Philosophy 201 and a little machine that strings that stuff together with ", retard" and hits post a lot. Should be plenty of room for Cortex
posted by bonaldi at 11:57 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by bonaldi at 11:57 AM on June 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
BONALDI DON'T GO IMPLICATING MY NEURONAUTERY IN YOUR FLAMEWAR
posted by cortex at 12:03 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by cortex at 12:03 PM on June 26, 2006
His head probably wouldn't hurt so much if I wasn't stirring it with a spoon.
posted by loquacious at 12:04 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by loquacious at 12:04 PM on June 26, 2006
I thought the first rule of askme, for questioners, was to have a sensible question. This is open to debate in this case, but it certainly didn't violate any of my moral standards.
I thought the first rule of askme, for answerers, was to answer the question if you could, or stfooi (stay the fuck out of it) if you couldn't.
I answered, cause I could, and I'm a better man for it. Don't ya think?
posted by disclaimer at 12:07 PM on June 26, 2006
I thought the first rule of askme, for answerers, was to answer the question if you could, or stfooi (stay the fuck out of it) if you couldn't.
I answered, cause I could, and I'm a better man for it. Don't ya think?
posted by disclaimer at 12:07 PM on June 26, 2006
Look I'm just saying when I drive around in my Range Rover I always smoke weed and no one gives me anything for it. Well sometimes the fat woman at McDonald's at 2AM will say something but I just throw the water in her face ("Fire drill!") and tell her to stop eating. So I don't see what's so bad with pot.
posted by geoff. at 12:12 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by geoff. at 12:12 PM on June 26, 2006
It's not that pot is bad for you, geoff., but that you're bad for pot.
posted by loquacious at 12:20 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by loquacious at 12:20 PM on June 26, 2006
Y'know, it's possible to both be over the legal limit without abusing alcohol and it's possible to drive while over the legal limit without that being alcohol abuse.
So - what does constitute alcohol abuse? All I see is you saying "that's not it." Is it like Art, where you know it if you see it, or do you actually have a definition of what constitutes abuse?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:23 PM on June 26, 2006
So - what does constitute alcohol abuse? All I see is you saying "that's not it." Is it like Art, where you know it if you see it, or do you actually have a definition of what constitutes abuse?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:23 PM on June 26, 2006
My wookiee is still bent.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:25 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 12:25 PM on June 26, 2006
I think the "you know it when you see it" is perfect for something as subjective as alcohol abuse. So many different definitions...
posted by geoff. at 12:27 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by geoff. at 12:27 PM on June 26, 2006
Ah, sophistry.
posted by boo_radley at 12:27 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 12:27 PM on June 26, 2006
geoff, almost all of the definitions in your link would include driving drunk enough to get you busted. For instance: Any irresponsible use of an alcoholic beverage which leads to misconduct, unacceptable social behavior, or impairment
Are you implying that Klang is wrong about what's abuse?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:39 PM on June 26, 2006
Are you implying that Klang is wrong about what's abuse?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:39 PM on June 26, 2006
A-ha, but Mr Gerson, I agree but as you notice the key word in most of the definitions is "habitual", "continued", "compulsive" and other such modifiers indicating a pattern of behavior -- not a singular instance. For all we know this could indeed be a singular instance of abuse, a random anomally in an otherwise controlled and non-abusive pattern. Then if someone were to say enjoy a simple glass of wine after work one evening for ten years and then went out once to get tanked, I would not indicate that is abuse. Of course this is pendatic, I am merely demonstrating that given the information we know of of Mr Lush we cannot assess whether this is alcohol abuse or a bad night. In any case drinking and driving is wrong within itself.
posted by geoff. at 12:49 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by geoff. at 12:49 PM on June 26, 2006
Yeh, but you didn't see in terms of getting what you wanted, you said in terms of winning. Cos you see everything here as a fight.
posted by bonaldi
I could have told you that. Part of his charm. But he is also right.
posted by beelzbubba at 12:58 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by bonaldi
I could have told you that. Part of his charm. But he is also right.
posted by beelzbubba at 12:58 PM on June 26, 2006
In any case drinking and driving is wrong within itself.
So being "wrong" does not make it "abuse?" Please explain just when wrong behavior involving alcohol becomes alcohol abuse. If the drunk driver who slid across my lawn early Saturday morning and took out my neighbor's fence and two trees was enjoying his first experience with the grape, then he wasn't abusing it? What if it was the second time? What does does the habituality of being dunk matter? I think you may be confusing alcohol abuse and alcoholism.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:03 PM on June 26, 2006
So being "wrong" does not make it "abuse?" Please explain just when wrong behavior involving alcohol becomes alcohol abuse. If the drunk driver who slid across my lawn early Saturday morning and took out my neighbor's fence and two trees was enjoying his first experience with the grape, then he wasn't abusing it? What if it was the second time? What does does the habituality of being dunk matter? I think you may be confusing alcohol abuse and alcoholism.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:03 PM on June 26, 2006
Habitual misuse becomes alcohol abuse? Alcoholism occurs with physical depedency? Okay so your definition of alcohol abuse would occur in a single instance, to me alcohol abuse would be several DUIs over a less than a decade -- or several instances of alcohol negatively interfering with life. I did provide a link that showed that there all kinds of definitions... I'm not saying your definition is wrong but it is not how I would characterize it. In any way it seems rather ridiculous that we are nitpicking apart a phrase.
posted by geoff. at 1:09 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by geoff. at 1:09 PM on June 26, 2006
I agree that abuse comprises a pattern of socially interfering behavior and that single instances tell us little. I think we do have enough information to talk about general substance abuse in this case, however, given the nature of the question. Basically the question indicates that the drunk driver uses pot so habitually that they are in danger of having it affect their legal outcomes at this upcoming hearing. While they could quit and not suffer any consequences the fact that they are waiting for a determination of the possibilities of it being an issue before doing so indicates to me that they've got an abuse problem. While some of the detrimental effects are suppossed, or defered, they still seem pretty clearly to be present.
posted by OmieWise at 1:15 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 1:15 PM on June 26, 2006
"So being "wrong" does not make it "abuse?"
Nope. Which is why you may want to stay away from slinging clinical terms around.
"If the drunk driver who slid across my lawn early Saturday morning and took out my neighbor's fence and two trees was enjoying his first experience with the grape, then he wasn't abusing it?"
He may have been abusing alcohol, he may not have. He was certainly abusing the fence.
But alcohol abuse is not something that you can diagnose based on a single incident, and certainly not solely based on the effects to fences.
" I think you may be confusing alcohol abuse and alcoholism."
I think you may be confused as well, because there's much more correlation between alcohol abuse and alcoholism than there is between alcohol abuse and drunk driving.
Cortex, Loquacious:
posted by klangklangston at 1:16 PM on June 26, 2006
Nope. Which is why you may want to stay away from slinging clinical terms around.
"If the drunk driver who slid across my lawn early Saturday morning and took out my neighbor's fence and two trees was enjoying his first experience with the grape, then he wasn't abusing it?"
He may have been abusing alcohol, he may not have. He was certainly abusing the fence.
But alcohol abuse is not something that you can diagnose based on a single incident, and certainly not solely based on the effects to fences.
" I think you may be confusing alcohol abuse and alcoholism."
I think you may be confused as well, because there's much more correlation between alcohol abuse and alcoholism than there is between alcohol abuse and drunk driving.
Cortex, Loquacious:
posted by klangklangston at 1:16 PM on June 26, 2006
nixerman writes "I think matt really ought to make a JudgeMe site."
What we really need is a third button after "Post Question" and "Preview." It should say "Do I need a lawyer?" and if you click it, you will be told that you do indeed need a lawyer. I'll press that goddamn button all-day long.
posted by mullacc at 1:35 PM on June 26, 2006
What we really need is a third button after "Post Question" and "Preview." It should say "Do I need a lawyer?" and if you click it, you will be told that you do indeed need a lawyer. I'll press that goddamn button all-day long.
posted by mullacc at 1:35 PM on June 26, 2006
I didn't sling around any clinical terms; you're just trying to redefine the question of what abuse is by limiting it to a medical diagnosis. That's not what you were implying earlier. From the drinker's point of view, or his doctor's, the medical definition is significant. To the rest of society, it's pretty much irrelevant. If the drunk driver causes property damage or injury, I think most of us would say he's abused the drinking privilege. If he gets caught before he can do damage, the abusive behavior is still there, we just got lucky.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:45 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:45 PM on June 26, 2006
I agree with you Kirth about the abuse in this case, but you're actually the one who seems to be trying to redefine terms. Alcohol abuse is a widely used phrase, clinically and elsewhere, that pretty much relies on a pattern of behavior for its definition.
posted by OmieWise at 1:50 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 1:50 PM on June 26, 2006
Alcohol abuse is a widely used phrase, clinically and elsewhere, that pretty much relies on a pattern of behavior for its definition.
really? I've always heard it used as any abusive use of alcohol, regardless of how long one's been at it. For instance, the reason you hear people say "Bob has a history of alcohol abuse," is because the phrase alcohol abuse doesn't necessarily imply a history.
I think it's rather that the addictive nature of alcohol causes many of us to associate abuse with long term abuse, because so many abusers do so for years.
posted by shmegegge at 2:16 PM on June 26, 2006
really? I've always heard it used as any abusive use of alcohol, regardless of how long one's been at it. For instance, the reason you hear people say "Bob has a history of alcohol abuse," is because the phrase alcohol abuse doesn't necessarily imply a history.
I think it's rather that the addictive nature of alcohol causes many of us to associate abuse with long term abuse, because so many abusers do so for years.
posted by shmegegge at 2:16 PM on June 26, 2006
For instance, the reason you hear people say "Bob has a history of alcohol abuse," is because the phrase alcohol abuse doesn't necessarily imply a history.
I thought it was because they didn't want to say "Bob is a goddam drunk".
posted by cortex at 2:25 PM on June 26, 2006
I thought it was because they didn't want to say "Bob is a goddam drunk".
posted by cortex at 2:25 PM on June 26, 2006
I removed the "ask me whore" response. I missed it the first time through. Usually we try hard not to delete comments by the OP.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:44 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:44 PM on June 26, 2006
"If the drunk driver causes property damage or injury, I think most of us would say he's abused the drinking privilege"
No, That would be abuse of the Driving privilege.
A minor difference, but it is not illegal to drive somewhere and then get drunk, only the other way around.
posted by Megafly at 3:22 PM on June 26, 2006
No, That would be abuse of the Driving privilege.
A minor difference, but it is not illegal to drive somewhere and then get drunk, only the other way around.
posted by Megafly at 3:22 PM on June 26, 2006
Which is why we take away people's license to drive rather than removing their ability to drink.
posted by klangklangston at 3:44 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 3:44 PM on June 26, 2006
Sure, but we can't take away their ability to drink, can we? It's not an activity licensed by the State.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:05 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:05 PM on June 26, 2006
In the early eighties, I was taught that abuse was "habitual and excessive" use of something. The definition in popular usage may have changed with the "Just Say No" campaign of the mid-eighties, as I vaguely remember a few terms being changed to be more strict. It'd be interesting to do a poll on the popular definition of the term, sorted by age of responder.
posted by Bugbread at 4:23 PM on June 26, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 4:23 PM on June 26, 2006
Kirth Gerson : "Sure, but we can't take away their ability to drink, can we?"
True, but that's why we shouldn't talk of drinking as a privilege in the first place.
posted by Bugbread at 4:24 PM on June 26, 2006
True, but that's why we shouldn't talk of drinking as a privilege in the first place.
posted by Bugbread at 4:24 PM on June 26, 2006
Kirth Gerson : "If the drunk driver causes property damage or injury, I think most of us would say he's abused the drinking privilege."
Admittedly, we're working with a very self-selected sample, but the way it stands now:
Abuse != any bad use
Klangklangston
geoff.
Omiewise
Megafly
bugbread
Abuse = any bad use
Kirth Gerson
pyramid termite
shmegegge
I don't think that means the "nonabuse" folks have it right, per se, but I do wonder if "most of us" would say it except in the really strict "51% would say" sense. It seems like a pretty close contest.
posted by Bugbread at 4:29 PM on June 26, 2006
Admittedly, we're working with a very self-selected sample, but the way it stands now:
Abuse != any bad use
Klangklangston
geoff.
Omiewise
Megafly
bugbread
Abuse = any bad use
Kirth Gerson
pyramid termite
shmegegge
I don't think that means the "nonabuse" folks have it right, per se, but I do wonder if "most of us" would say it except in the really strict "51% would say" sense. It seems like a pretty close contest.
posted by Bugbread at 4:29 PM on June 26, 2006
What if we assume that the State had no interest in testing for pot, I still don't feel that, "There will be no test. Smoke away," would be a good answer, or even it it were, that we can reasonably expect reasonable people to not engage in some extracurricular advice giving. It seems to me that at some point the potential community harm of answerer self-censorship outweighs the potential community harm of wrecking the signal/noise ratio.
Then again, I [heart] the JudgeMe idea, regardless of whether or not it was given in sarcasm. Sign me up! Yay!
posted by Skwirl at 6:54 PM on June 26, 2006
Then again, I [heart] the JudgeMe idea, regardless of whether or not it was given in sarcasm. Sign me up! Yay!
posted by Skwirl at 6:54 PM on June 26, 2006
Baphomet worded it poorly.
"My friend has a court date in a couple of weeks, and is wondering about the Minnesota judicial system's drug testing policy. Should he stop smoking up until after?" would have worked fine, and MeFi's moral majority would have had to keep their throbbing wangs of indignation in their pants.
Everyone's a winnah!
Well, except for the throbbing wangs.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:19 PM on June 26, 2006
"My friend has a court date in a couple of weeks, and is wondering about the Minnesota judicial system's drug testing policy. Should he stop smoking up until after?" would have worked fine, and MeFi's moral majority would have had to keep their throbbing wangs of indignation in their pants.
Everyone's a winnah!
Well, except for the throbbing wangs.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:19 PM on June 26, 2006
Wasn't the entire question deleted?
Yes. Which means that, technically, I won.
posted by cribcage at 9:07 PM on June 26, 2006
Yes. Which means that, technically, I won.
posted by cribcage at 9:07 PM on June 26, 2006
I don't think that means the "nonabuse" folks have it right, per se, but I do wonder if "most of us" would say it except in the really strict "51% would say" sense.
Well, by "most of us," of course I meant "all Right-Thinking Americans." That lets your top list right out. there's still room in my Correct Thought seminar, for any of you who want to become RTAs.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:20 AM on June 27, 2006
Well, by "most of us," of course I meant "all Right-Thinking Americans." That lets your top list right out. there's still room in my Correct Thought seminar, for any of you who want to become RTAs.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:20 AM on June 27, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by klangklangston at 9:58 AM on June 26, 2006