Sex and Drugs In Stories

[DVS]

I figure that with weed, like most other things you can do or put in your body, every person is going to get different reactions. Like, when I was on anti-depressants...I got some side-effects, but different ones than my ex boyfriend who was on the same anti-depressant. Just different for everybody.

Chicklet

Yes, everybody is different and only taking a drug will truly tell you if you will be helped by it.

And, interesting enough, I've been on a medication that has a "possible" side effect...MAN BREASTS!

I've been taking it for about 2 years, and don't see anything yet...thank God!

Ever checked a PDR for some of the meds you take? You might be surprised at some of the recorded side effects.

 

[snuffalupicus]

As usual

when people talk about the inclusion of any type of content which is controversial
the arguement strays from the question of whether including this content in thier story is a good idea into
a debate on the content(drugs, violence, rape, cuss words, whatever) and whether that thing is good in society.

People on this post have agued on and on about drug use, how horrible is, or not, what they think of people who use drugs ect.

At that point the conversation is no longer about the original question, which was esentially about sensitivity, censorship of those things that are unacceptable to some.

People do drugs, they smoke, they rape, they cuss and kill. Stories should be about life, and include all realities of life, and be open to all fantasies of all people.

A person who doesn't approve of a thing can still write about thing without compromising their morals, example: a person in a story who does drugs and who's life is not better for it. (that's reality) a person who does drugs incidentally and who's experience is better and more interesting for it (that's also reality)

If having anything in a story helps to craft that story into a more interesting, provocative work, if it fits with the environment that your backdrop is than there is every reason to include it.

No content should be censored in entertainment meant mainly for an adult audiance. The only reason to completely censor a type of content is because of a belief that while this content is in entertainment it will seduce the adiance to embrace that content.

We live in a free society, and as citizens it is our right to make our own judgements from everything we see, we are givin the responsibility to jusdge for ourselves and no one should decide to edit our influences for our own good.

The point of this thread was far missed by most, it's not about whether pot is good or not, if I want to write about a nazi who force feeds a prisoner acid and rapes her Its up to the audince to decide whether my story was developed and executed well, and respond sexually or not,

A story doesn't have to be for everyone to feel unaffended by, life offends and so will story, we are all unique and if some of us like something or need something that others don't then that's ok, and a person or story shouldn't be condemned fully for the inclusion of one or two or twenty things.

get on the ball people.

 

[PepperTed]

drugs, smugs...



what is prohibition today is packaged and taxed tomorrow...

 

[MathGirl]

And, interesting enough, I've been on a medication that has a "possible" side effect...MAN BREASTS!

Dear DVS,
Yes, but has it caused hair regrowth or shrunk your prostate?
MG
Ps. Mom's a pharmacology prof. She says all drugs are two edged swords.
Pps. Some of us would love to have a little gynecomastia.

 

[Guest]

Mom's a pharmacology prof. She says all drugs are two edged swords.

Seriously, true. A friend who underwent too many bouts of chemotherapy, but made all his own life or death decisions, said it always came down to choosing which poison might help him live longer.

Perdita

 

[MathGirl]

Huh!

get on the ball people.[/COLOR]

Well! I guess Snuff really set us straight. Thanks for showing us poor, benighted sinners where the bear shit in the buckwheat.
Gratefully,
MG

 

[DVS]

...At that point the conversation is no longer about the original question, which was esentially about sensitivity, censorship of those things that are unacceptable to some.

...A story doesn't have to be for everyone to feel unaffended by, life offends and so will story, we are all unique and if some of us like something or need something that others don't then that's ok, and a person or story shouldn't be condemned fully for the inclusion of one or two or twenty things.

get on the ball people.

What you say is true. Nobody should be forced to do something or write a certain way. But, if you want to be a member of society's cliques, you do what you have to do.

It is possible not to, but it is very difficult. So difficult, most won't try, for fear of rejection. We all need to belong to something or someone, and it's amazing what we will do or put up with to achieve this. It's only human nature.

And, if you look closely at this thread you may see that we haven't deviated from the original point very far at all. The question was asked if one would be offended if reading a story with certain content included. Don't you think we have given him at least something to think about? I think we gave him several points of view to ponder, good and bad.

 

[DVS]

Dear DVS,
Yes, but has it caused hair regrowth or shrunk your prostate?
MG
Ps. Mom's a pharmacology prof. She says all drugs are two edged swords.
Pps. Some of us would love to have a little gynecomastia.

Ah, my hair left many moons ago. And the prostate is doing rather nicely, thank you.

 

[MathGirl]

Ah, my hair left many moons ago. And the prostate is doing rather nicely, thank you.

Dear DVS,
That's good. DHT can be nasty stuff. Glad I don't have any.
MG

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm wary of opening this can of worms again, but I do wish to set the record straight as to my position and involvement in drugs, because I seem to have been perceived as some wild-eyed crack-addict junkie-yahoo anarchist and general bad influence.

Normally I consider it in bad taste to pull one's credentials out as a way of establishing authority or expertise in a field, especially in this case, since we've ostensibly been "discussing" opinions on drugs and one's right to express them, and not drugs per se. However, since my own views are apparently so repellant and offesnsive to so many people, I think some personal information might be in order.

I graduated originally with a BA in English back at a time when drug use was common. I took all sorts of stuff, and I was so fascinated with my own personal experiences that I began taking college courses in chemistry and physiology, and finally went back to school full time at considerable financial sacrifice to earn a master's degree in organic chemistry.

I then worked for two years synthesizing experimental psychopharmaceuticals for the National Institude of Mental Health (none of which I took myself, I might add) before taking a position with a large and well-known pharmaceutical house. I workedin process reserach and in drug discovery for 12 years. I like to joke that I turned a hobby into a high-paying career.

During this time I kept up with the literature and research in the field, or rather, what research the government would allow, which was not much and always limited to those studies that sought to prove that drugs were bad, physically, socially, developmentally, every way.

Anyone with any experience in psychopharmaceutical research over the past 20-30 years knows very well that the US government will only fund studies on drugs' deleterious effects. This is not conspiracy theory, this is plain, stated policy and a matter of public record. It is virtually impossible to get government funding to research any of the purported medical benefits of cannabis, for example. They simply will not let you.

As I say this is not conspiracy theory, This is stated DEA policy. NIMH funding for this type of research has totally dried up.

The Government and the Powers That Be have been remarkably successful in turning the entire area of psychotropics, a vast, complex, and virtually unexplored field, into an intellectual Dead Zone into which no one is allowed. They don't know and they don't want to know what's in there. Apprently, even pornograpohers are unwilling to go in there. The hammer comes down, the knee jerks up. Drugs are mentioned, and people run screaming from the room making the sign of the cross with their fingers.

That's all I have to say about my bona fides and my qualifications to speak on the subject. I know a lot from both the scientific and the personal side of the issue. I'm not in any way advocating drug use by anyone. I'm merely saying that a very important and vital field of study, in which much valuable work was orginally done by "recreational users", and which could provide truly amazing benefits to humankind has been put off limits to all of us because of ignorance and knee-jerk hysteria. It is witchcraft all over again. It's a very complicated subject and deserves a lot more thought and unbiased consideration than it ever receives.

I also want to stress that by laying out my qualifications I am in no way implying that my opinions and personal feelings on the ethics and morality of drug use are in any way more valid than anyone else's. I do draw a clear distinction between opinion and fact, however, and would humbly request that others observe this distinction as well. Opinions are not subject to judgments of right and wrong; facts are.

Now, the chemist in me would never be still until I pointed out that Taurine, one of the "active" ingredients in Red Bull is not a hormone, but an alpha-amino acid, and without measurable pharmocological effect. If it had any effect, Red Bull would fall under FDA control

Rebound effects from caffeine are well known and have been studied and effect something like 20-30% of heavy users. I would have to get back to you on the source for those figures but theyre not hard tro find.

By the way, caffeine for obvious reasons is one of the few psychotropics than can still be researched, the others being ethanol and nicotine.

If anyone would like any more information or like to continue the debate over the meaning and significance of drugs, feel free to PM me. The subject still fascinates me. I just ask that you bring more than anecdote and personal opinion to support your contentions.

---dr.M.

 

[snuffalupicus]

And, if you look closely at this thread you may see that we haven't deviated from the original point very far at all. The question was asked if one would be offended if reading a story with certain content included. Don't you think we have given him at least something to think about? I think we gave him several points of view to ponder, good and bad.

The points of veiw given were points of veiw on whether people would be offended by drug use, instead of whether the presence of drugs in a story would offend people.

Herion is a fucked up drug, as most people would agree, its presence in Pulp Fiction didn't make it an offensive movie.

The question was about whether people could stomach certian portions of reality in thier readings, not whether they would want to date someone who smoked pot.

I mean no offence man but youre talking about cancer medications, what does that have to do with the original question?,

It shouldn't have been about whether pot was a good or a bad thing but about wether you can accept it being involved with a plot youre reading.

On Law and Order they include drugs, rape, child pornographers and everything that doesn't make it an offensive show.

You seem very intelligent I would hope you would understand my point.

I apologize if this comes off as being very abrasive, but like so many other posters on this thread, I feel very strongly about my position, about censorship,

and that's what this post is really about, its not about drugs, thats just a line in the sand that for some people is all that's important.

 

[MathGirl]

Taurine, one of the "active" ingredients in Red Bull is not a hormone, but an alpha-amino acid, and without measurable pharmocological effect.

Dear Dr M,
Somebody is touting taurine as a drug? I thought it was just an essential amino acid only in cats. Never heard of it doing anything but keeping kitties healthy.
MG
Ps. My mom agrees completely with you about psychotropic drugs. She had to give up on neurotransmitter effects long ago because of lack of funding. Now she works on fascinating stuff like beta blockers. Woo woo woo

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Dear Dr M,
Somebody is touting taurine as a drug? I thought it was just an essential amino acid only in cats. Never heard of it doing anything but keeping kitties healthy.
MG

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Nutraceuticals!

Of course taurine has no effect on humans. If it did, it would be a drug, and FDA rules would require that they provide studies proving efficacy and safety; it would have to meet veryt stringent and expensive manufacturing and QC requiremants, and all sort of other profit-eating stuff.

But since it's a food, it's beyond FDA control, and Red Bull can say pretty much whatever they want about it: may enhance performance... has been shown to boost energy... performance-enhancing...

The health-food lobby and vitamin makers have fought long and hard and spent untold $$$ on keepingthe FDA out of its playground. As long as a product is listed as a food--a "nutriceutical"--they can claim anything they pretty much want. They're only subject to Federal and local Trade reulations, which are pretty toothless. That's why all the drug makers have nutriceutical subsidiaries raking it in hand over fist. The profits are truly astonishing.

That's why you see these doctors on the late-nigt infomercials touting the miracle effect of their calcium supplement, which is $0.02 of crushed oyster shell selling for $39.95. They have "documented proof" (i.e. conducted by their own Institute of Crushed Oyster Shell Research) showing the medical benefits of their product. That's why you have people shelling out $1.99 for gatoraid, which is basically favored water with the nutritional content of a popsicle.

I should probably check before saying this, but I'm reasonably sure that taurine was first isolated from bull urine. It is not an essential amino acid for humans, which means that your body is entirely capable of manufacturing the small amounts you might need.

---dr.M.

 

[MathGirl]

may enhance performance... has been shown to boost energy... performance-enhancing...

Dear Dr M,
Well...... Taurine IS performance enhancing. In cats. They sort of .... die if they don't get any.
MG
Ps. You're unfair to Gatorade. It also contains about half a microcent worth of NaCl and KCl per bottle.
Pps. My undergrad thesis was on "nutritional supplements." What a $%&^^)(*^%!! bunch of frauds.

 

[DVS]

The points of veiw given were points of veiw on whether people would be offended by drug use, instead of whether the presence of drugs in a story would offend people.

Herion is a fucked up drug, as most people would agree, its presence in Pulp Fiction didn't make it an offensive movie.

The question was about whether people could stomach certian portions of reality in thier readings, not whether they would want to date someone who smoked pot.

I mean no offence man but youre talking about cancer medications, what does that have to do with the original question?,

It shouldn't have been about whether pot was a good or a bad thing but about wether you can accept it being involved with a plot youre reading.

On Law and Order they include drugs, rape, child pornographers and everything that doesn't make it an offensive show.

You seem very intelligent I would hope you would understand my point.

I apologize if this comes off as being very abrasive, but like so many other posters on this thread, I feel very strongly about my position, about censorship,

and that's what this post is really about, its not about drugs, thats just a line in the sand that for some people is all that's important.

The only thing that offends me about your post is your use of blue. I have difficulty reading it.

I also don't know what you mean by cancer drugs? Who is speaking of cancer drugs? It wasn't me.

Surely you see the connection between the strong opinions on this thread and how the same people may vote on a story? And for every person who speaks up, there are more with the same opinion who don't.

If it were me writing the story, I would only include references necessary for the story's reality factor. Such as, if you have a bunch of bikers riding Harleys, they shouldn't be drinking Rootbeer. Anything stuck in that seems out of place could be seen as offensive to someone.

Wait a minute...bikers on Harleys, drinking Rootbeer. Do I see a story in there someplace?
BIKERS ON SUDS!

 

[Guest]

whatever

 

[hiddenself]

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Nutraceuticals!
The health-food lobby and vitamin makers have fought long and hard and spent untold $$$ on keepingthe FDA out of its playground. As long as a product is listed as a food--a "nutriceutical"--they can claim anything they pretty much want. They're only subject to Federal and local Trade reulations, which are pretty toothless. That's why all the drug makers have nutriceutical subsidiaries raking it in hand over fist. The profits are truly astonishing.

Well, that will end as soon as there's some "natural" ingredient that causes a bunch of deaths. Ephedra has done some work along those lines. When something bigger comes along, say bye-bye to unregulated "natural" products. Can't be soon enough.

 

[MathGirl]

Ephedra has done some work along those lines.

Good Grief! Ephedra has been used in Chinese herbal medicine for centuries, and it's been around in this country for about seventy years.

The active ingredient is ephedrine, and it's found in about a jillion OTC decongestants. E.g. Sudafed is one of its isomers.

It's a phenylethylamine, so it's a handy precursor for bathtub methamphetamine, too.

My point is that this isn't some "new" scary monster drug that just appeared out of nowhere.
MG
Ps. I'm sure Dr M knows a lot more about this than I do. I just took organic chemistry for my own information, and I was raised by a MD, PhD pharmacologist. With my photogenic mammary, a lot of irrelevant information sticks.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, that will end as soon as there's some "natural" ingredient that causes a bunch of deaths. Ephedra has done some work along those lines. When something bigger comes along, say bye-bye to unregulated "natural" products. Can't be soon enough.

Actually, the FDA just decided to let food manufacturers make drug-like claims for their products. (The article was in the Chicago Tribune yesterday) The rational is that is will help consumers make more educated purchases.

Yeah, right.

The health food industry a hugely profitable. All the profits of the ethical drug industry without those pesky regulations and requirements that you prove that what you're selling really does something. I don't think there are any plans for regulating their claims in the near future.

Yes, ephedrine has been used in Chinese traditional medicine for centuries. The botanical source is Ephdra Sinensis and the active principle was isolated and characterized back in the 30's, and MG gets an A because the trivial chemical name for the active ingredient is phenethylamine, aka phenylethylamine. Stick a methyl group on the amino-bearing Carbon and you've got benzedrine, an amphetamine. Add another methyl group onto the amino Nitrogen and you've got methedrine.

God forgive me but I do like to show off!

The few deaths that have occurred from ephedrine are from gross overdosing with the stuff. Ephedrine gives you a horrible buzz, very much like a super-intense caffeine high. If your idea of fun is sitting around with your eyes bugging out, gnashing your teeth and shaking with unfocused nervous rage, it's the drug for you.


---dr.M.

 

[MathGirl]

sitting around with your eyes bugging out, gnashing your teeth and shaking with unfocused nervous rage

Dear Dr M,
Gosh, it sounds like a normal day around the Aurhor's Hangout.
MG

 

[snuffalupicus]

If it were me writing the story, I would only include references necessary for the story's reality factor. Such as, if you have a bunch of bikers riding Harleys, they shouldn't be drinking Rootbeer. Anything stuck in that seems out of place could be seen as offensive to someone.

That's what I meant,

I don't know about you but when they bleep out half of a great movie like 'Flawless' (Deniro, Hoffman flick) when they air it on cable I find that offensive. As if words could ever hurt anyone, and regardless if you don't like the uncensored style of a work just don't air it. (rant)

If I can't use colored words how am I supposed to stand out?,

Anyway I think in my time I'll end up including almost everything in my posts but the kiddy stuff, and I know there are plenty of people who will enjoy what I write, and that's all I care about, not the ones who dismiss the work at its first sign of reality, to those I say buy yourself some wholesale Disney flicks and masterbate to mickey mouse till you pass out. ( Now that was harsh wasn't it?)

Well I wish offending people wasn't such a negative experience as Ive always felt quite sick on it.

 

[DVS]

That's what I meant,

I don't know about you but when they bleep out half of a great movie like 'Flawless' (Deniro, Hoffman flick) when they air it on cable I find that offensive. As if words could ever hurt anyone, and regardless if you don't like the uncensored style of a work just don't air it. (rant)

Well, I think we all feel that way. Especially when we have seen it on the big screen and know when they chop it up into pieces for TV. But, a lot of the problem is people haven't seen it on the big screen and don't know what is missing.

Also, they want to be able to show it to the early evening viewers and that included people who might object to language or nudity. To keep from getting protests for showing such filth at that hour, they chop it up.

What gets me the most is they never show the complete version, even in the wee hours. And, some scheduling is so tight, nothing over two hours can be shown, so it is "EDITED FOR TV".

But, we can't do anything about it, so we just have to live with it. It is part of the fad we are living in where everybody has to be politically correct or risk being sued by some idiot who sees dollar signs in their eyes.

If I can't use colored words how am I supposed to stand out?,

I did that as a test. In your posts you seemed so unlikely to change anything for a reader, but you changed your blue for me, because I can't see it. Didn't you just alter your standards to a lesser degree for a reader?

Sure, it isn't a very scientific test, but we all will bend our ways, if even slightly, to accomodate someone or to conform to set rules so we can be included. It's just human nature. We do it all the time, without even knowing it.

I just wanted to make a point. You can continue with the blue, if you want. I can see it, but at times it's difficult. And, I'm surely in the minority.