You're conflating use with abuse.

Subject: You're conflating use with abuse.
Author: Scapegrace
Posted on: 2015-04-01 09:24:00 UTC

Use is not abuse.

I cannot stress this enough, and it's the trap that you and every other person falls into. Use of drugs is not the same thing as abuse of drugs. This is just flat-out wrong. It's also the fallacy at the heart of American drugs policy, which destroys countless thousands more lives than it purports to save or protect.

It is my firm belief that drugs should be treated like cigarettes - you know, those things people smoke to get a chemical fix - or alcohol - that liquid people take to get a chemical fix. They should be legal, but misuse should be cracked down on and help should be made available for those who are addicted. It should no longer be driven underground; instead, it should be open, but very tightly regulated for purity and such so that they are safe for the users. You also kick lumps out of the funding for criminal activity, but that's really just a side benefit compared to the humanitarian issue here.

And if you seriously belief that adhering to an inflexible, doctrinaire system that harms far more than it helps is part of the social contract, then I don't really know what else to say.

Sorry about calling you a Puritan, though. It wasn't justified, and was intended only to mock and denigrate your position. That's not what an argument about an issue as serious as this should descend to.

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Stoner agents? by ratbrainbasher on 2015-03-31 07:23:00 UTC Reply

Before I even consider asking permission, I need concepts. One of said concepts was a stoner agent. Is that allowed? I am assuming so, as long as they don't do heroin or something else stupid. It seems odd to allow for gruesome (and satisfying) assassination, but not stoners. Still, felt it best to ask.

Whatever you do, make them a realistic character... by Calista on 2015-03-31 21:14:00 UTC Reply

Not just a mouthpiece for your opinions about drugs or drug abuse.

They're more than just "a stoner". They use drugs (pot, I'm assuming) for a reason. Is it because they enjoy the high, or because they're trying to escape something? Do they want to stop? How does it affect their life? And who are they, without the drug habit? If there's not a real, three-dimensional character left over when you take away the drug habit, then you're in bad-characterization territory.

This is the important part. by World-Jumper on 2015-03-31 21:42:00 UTC Reply

Forget the debate over whether or not people should take mind altering substances. People do, and that is important. If you want to write a character that takes some of these substances, think about and explore a little why. Ask yourself these questions while writing, and be careful to not write atop a soapbox, and we should all be fine.

Speaking as someone who's been hurt by drug abuse... by Neshomeh on 2015-03-31 16:35:00 UTC Reply

Oh, wait, you probably thought I meant illegal drugs. I'm talking about alcohol, the one that's 100% omnipresent and accepted in society, and even still allowed to be advertised on TV. The one that people write about their characters indulging in with nary a second thought because pretty much everyone does, in fact, do it.

Actually, I'm cool with agents drinking, and I don't have a problem with agents smoking a joint every now and then. I know plenty of people who smoke pot to varying degrees. They're generally pretty okay. It's just another potentially-addictive thing people can choose to do responsibly or not, IMO.

Just, y'know, please avoid basing a character solely on stereotypes. That's a bad idea regardless of what stereotypes you're using.

~Neshomeh

Don't worry about it. by ratbrainbasher on 2015-04-01 06:46:00 UTC Reply

I know how to write stoners in such a way that they are not just "generic stoners" but three dimensional characters.

And as for you saying you've been hurt by drug abuse, you don't need to go into details. Anyone can have my sympathies for free.

Thanks. {= ) by Neshomeh on 2015-04-02 03:33:00 UTC Reply

... You know, the way you said I don't have to go into details makes me feel oddly compelled to do so. I'm not sure if you've discovered the most perfect method of asking for more information while pretending not to, or if you really don't want to know. {X D

~Neshomeh

On stoner agents. by PoorCynic on 2015-03-31 16:21:00 UTC Reply

(By "stoner," I'm assuming you mean one who uses marijuana. I mention this because that is what will inform the remainder of this post.)

I don't have a problem with the idea in theory. We have agents who drink, we have agents who smoke tobacco, and we have agents who engage in other bad habits. Based on the research I have read and the evidence I have seen, marijuana use is hardly going to destroy the PPC.

That doesn't mean I have concerns. First off, would this agent be someone who noshes on a hash brownie after a mission to relax or a full on Tommy Chong/Seth Rogan "blaze it up 4/20" dude? If it is closer to the later, I should point out that being that stoned would probably interfere with one's duties at least a little bit.

Secondly, I should point out that "stoner agent" really isn't much of a concept. It tells me nothing about their personality unless you intend to follow the traditional stoner stereotypes (which I would advise against, due to how dull and hackneyed it could be). You can't really base a fleshed-out character solely around the fact that they use drugs. It should be a facet of who they are, not the crux.
Personally, I'm not comfortable with that. by SeaTurtle on 2015-03-31 15:33:00 UTC Reply

Drug use is a serious problem for both the (ab)user and the people around them. It's one thing to write about tired, manic, and bloodthirsty agents but a completely other thing to write about agents who are tired, manic, bloodthirsty, and hopped up on psychoactive substances. Most of them are addictive and cause behavioural disorders-- even the "softer" ones.

In my opinion it's really not something that should be glorified or made "normal".

I have to agree with SeaTurtle here. by Cassie on 2015-03-31 16:22:00 UTC Reply

I've worked with drug users and people recovering from drug use in the past, and they made it quite clear that even things considered to be softer, like marijuana, could have pretty nasty effects and were quite addictive. It's really not something that I would consider a good thing to have as part of a portrayed agent. Mentions of people who use drugs off-screen would probably be okay.

I recall one agent in the past who was always trying to get high but never succeeded, and that was due to her characterisation as something of a stoner in her original universe before she was recruited. The point is she was still doing her job without mind-altering substances coursing through her brain and making her (more of) a danger. (In case you were wondering, it was Agent Paddlebrains.)

Just Say No, Agents! by Scapegrace on 2015-03-31 17:14:00 UTC Reply

I'm afraid I completely disagree. Yes, psychoactive drugs are dangerous. What they aren't is dangerous to the degree presented by the world's litany of scaremongers. And frankly, I'm not all that surprised you found recovering addicts harping on about the dangers - there's no preacher like a recent convert, after all.

I would not be one bit frelling surprised if more agents turned to something that hits a little harder than booze or a couple of Woodbines than let on. Bleeprin, as we've seen countless times before across the history of the PPC, doesn't work on everything. Every agent has their own damage - it's almost a requirement for the position - and some people are going to try and self-medicate. So I'm in full support of an agent visibly using drugs, and I urge you in turn to please, please, please leave your Puritanism at the door where it belongs.

Your War's over, cob. Your side lost.

Out of line, Scapegrace by Phobos on 2015-03-31 18:25:00 UTC Reply

You are well within your rights to disagree. However, your tone and rhetoric are over the line. You owe SeaTurtle and Cassie an apology for the Puritanism comment and that last line, at minimum.

Keep it civil, people.

-Phobos
Disagreeing with your disagreement. by SeaTurtle on 2015-03-31 17:47:00 UTC Reply

*Inception horns*

The way I see it, it's not so much Puritanism as not wanting to see people's lives destroyed by substance abuse. It's part of the social contract: people shouldn't consume mind-altering substances because it puts a strain on everyone around them-- why should others pay the price of the selfish individual's actions?

It's all fun and cool and useful and relaxing and OK until someone ODs or does something stupid while impaired.

You're conflating use with abuse. by Scapegrace on 2015-04-01 09:24:00 UTC Reply

Use is not abuse.

I cannot stress this enough, and it's the trap that you and every other person falls into. Use of drugs is not the same thing as abuse of drugs. This is just flat-out wrong. It's also the fallacy at the heart of American drugs policy, which destroys countless thousands more lives than it purports to save or protect.

It is my firm belief that drugs should be treated like cigarettes - you know, those things people smoke to get a chemical fix - or alcohol - that liquid people take to get a chemical fix. They should be legal, but misuse should be cracked down on and help should be made available for those who are addicted. It should no longer be driven underground; instead, it should be open, but very tightly regulated for purity and such so that they are safe for the users. You also kick lumps out of the funding for criminal activity, but that's really just a side benefit compared to the humanitarian issue here.

And if you seriously belief that adhering to an inflexible, doctrinaire system that harms far more than it helps is part of the social contract, then I don't really know what else to say.

Sorry about calling you a Puritan, though. It wasn't justified, and was intended only to mock and denigrate your position. That's not what an argument about an issue as serious as this should descend to.
That's kind of the crux by [EvilAI]UBEROverlord on 2015-03-31 18:56:00 UTC Reply

I think it can cause a lot of internal conflict within the user. I also think it can set up a good story, the agent and his partner, particularly if the partner is drug adverse. This can set a very realistic element, and something that is not that far-fetched in my opinion.

I mean look at it this way, these agents are slogging through some of the worst things on the internet. That's enough to cause the need for self-medication. As an example, look at many attorneys in real life. They see the worst humanity has to offer, and many turn to drugs, alcohol, etc.

But I will say that while I think it is doable, maybe fitting the tone of the PPC would be hard unless you resort to the traditional stereotypes. I would also contend that it needs to be carefully done. It seems like it would be very easy to turn a character like that into an author soapbox. And I do not think anyone really wants that.

Agreed 100% (nm) by World-Jumper on 2015-03-31 22:25:00 UTC Reply
Well put. by Neshomeh on 2015-03-31 19:19:00 UTC Reply

I agree with [EAI]UO's comments. (BTW, you wouldn't happen to be acquainted with a Farmer MacDonald, would you?)

~Neshomeh

I see what you did there by [EvilAI]UBEROverlord on 2015-03-31 19:29:00 UTC Reply

And no. I am not.

Not completely sure it would work by richardhednil on 2015-03-31 12:33:00 UTC Reply

An agent with a stoner personality might work, but them actually being a drug addict might be a touchy subject matter.
Whoah, dude. by World-Jumper on 2015-03-31 07:59:00 UTC Reply

"Do you ever just think... Like... None of this is real, man?"

"Well, yeah. We fight to protect fictional characters. Well, mostly fictional, anyway. So yeah, I'd say things aren't the way they seem."

"No, man. More like... Like, the PPC is not real. Like the flowers and stuff... Like, none of them are real, man."

"Whoah... No way."

"Dude, check it. There's this funky letter here, man... Wanna roll it?"

-----

Anyway, as far as I know, it's fine. However, Internal Affairs may not have the same feelings. Many neurotics are either banned or heavily restricted. Still, a stoner agent trying to hide his drugs from DoIA might be interesting. Could have a Inspector Javert like relationship with a DoIA agent trying to bust the agent for his illegal drugs. Just, try to keep it to the general strength of Marijuana. There are a lot of drugs throughout the multiverse that could mess up a lot of agents real bad. There is a reason why the DoIA is strict with its rules.

I've said this before, a while ago... by Scapegrace on 2015-03-31 11:19:00 UTC Reply

But I think the DIA would turn a blind eye to uppers and crack down hard on downers. Consider the practice during World War II of hopping up tank crews on cocaine and MD to keep them sharp during a battle - with access to the collected narcotic mind-sharpeners of the entire multiverse, I think the Flowers wouldn't actually mind, as long as they don't have to pay for it. Individual DIA agents, on the other hand, may feel differently about the whole thing. Just spitballing here. =]

((open your eyes, marquis. open your miiiiiiiiiiind.))

The way I've always looked at it is pretty simple. by Ekyl on 2015-04-03 06:04:00 UTC Reply

They don't care about low grade stuff like marijuana, unless an agent is hitting the stuff so hard they can't do their job, but they're most definitely stepping in against stuff like crack, meth, slab, heroin, whatever. If you're dealing stuff that'll cook your brain inside your skull like an egg or turn you into a drooling vegetable, or has literally lethal withdrawal symptoms (see: a lot of the fictional drugs on the forbidden substances list), they're cracking down on you. Just like they'll arrest somebody for getting in a drunken fistfight where someone gets their head busted open, but not for drinking the alcohol in the first place. If you're a user, you're probably not going to be thrown in their jail just for that, unless you've done something else illegal (hurt another agent, destroyed or stole PPC equipment, threatened the Flowers, whatever), most likely they make you cool your heels in their equivalent of the drunk tank or go to Medical to get the stuff out of your system and deal with any dependencies built up.

Well, addiction is not unheard of, among Agents... by Edhelistar on 2015-03-31 07:51:00 UTC Reply

...buuuuut, I think that would depend on to what is the Agent addicted to. There's stuff that's forbidden in HQ, so those are right out. For other substances... well, I'll let more experienced members of the community decide on those.

These were my two cents.

On a sligtly different note, the banned substances list... by World-Jumper on 2015-03-31 22:38:00 UTC Reply

The list seems rather... Basic. The information provided about the substances is sparce, and even has some direct falsehoods. For example, it says that crack is another name for cocaine. Crack cocaine and cocaine are two very different substances. Cocaine is refined coca leaves, made into a power form and snorted. Crack is made of battery acid, drain fluid, and all other nasty things. The two are administered the same way, but are very different drugs.

I think an effort to update the list and expand on the information provided might be a good idea. I am no expert on drugs, (despite my defense for people taking them if they choose, I, myself, choose not to) so I am probably not the best guy to take on the project. However, if somebody else would take it on, I would be very thankful.
It Would Probably Safest to Use Bleeprin. by sjosten on 2015-03-31 15:39:00 UTC Reply

Most of the Agents seem to be just a little too into it anyway.

Yes, but Bleep isn't actually addicting. by Iximaz on 2015-03-31 15:56:00 UTC Reply

The only reason agents practically worship the stuff is because they're exposed to so much badness. Take away the bad, take away the need to Bleep.

And I'd have to agree with SeaTurtle; unless this subject is handled very, very well, I'd strongly advise you not go this route. It's very easy to slip into accidentally misrepresenting/glorifying substance abuse— not to mention, it can be a serious trigger for some people.

But what is the difference, really? by World-Jumper on 2015-03-31 17:19:00 UTC Reply

Most people start smoking because they need to relax. The psychedelic nature of the drug helps to make the world a little brighter for them, at the moment. It is near impossible to become physically addicted to marijuana, though a mental problem can arise. For most people, it is a recreational drug they take every once in a while to make the troubles of the world lessen for a while.

Then, we have bleeprin, a substance that targets bad memories and removes them, with an aspirin kicker to remove the physical pain too. Some of the most addictive substances are pain killers, and bleeprin is, in many ways, the ultimate pain killer. It not only sooths the physical pains of badfic, but removes the memories of what caused it to begin with! We know bleep is far from medicinal, because we mix pseudo alcohol to wash away the pain even more effectively! And what is to stop people from taking it for other mental pains? What about a bad break up? Just pop some pills, and have that that piece of dead weight you lugged arround just wash away. Or the death of a loved one? Now they are not dead. They're just... gone for a while. A long while. Long enough you'll never be able to see them again... hold on, just a few more pills.

Yet, how do we justify it? Well, it's not addictive. So it's OK. Right, sure, keep telling yourself that. So, perhaps it's not physically addictive. Does that mean it's not able to be abused? Far from it. It is a mind altering substance, somebody is addicted to it. Heck, we joke about how much agents take, trying to make the pain go away. Medical being out of bleep causes riots in the halls! I see time and time again, people joking about how much they abuse this drug. However, once it turns from bleep abuse to cannabis abuse, now it's a problem? I'm sorry, I just don't see the real difference. One is fictional, the other is real. And? People can still pick up ideas about what is or is not appropriate behavior around drugs from fictional substances. I see no real difference.

We joke about it because it isn't right. by SeaTurtle on 2015-03-31 17:55:00 UTC Reply

Agents are on the run from everything: Suvians, punishments from Upstairs, Squick, their own unhinged partners, and so on. So when they reach for their favourite Bleeproduct we can laugh and say: "that's no way to live!"

And it really isn't.

Furthermore, "smoking to relax" is a huge joke. My grandfather who died from cancer sure as hell wasn't smoking to relax when he was coughing his tar-filled lungs out: he was a slave to the nicotine. His addiction also killed his wife, who died of cancer caused by second-hand smoke.

And you're telling me that harder stuff is "okay" and "recreational"? I'll have to disagree with you on that.

So... by Neshomeh on 2015-03-31 18:28:00 UTC Reply

I'm confused. Are trying to say that making jokes about Bleeprin, a fictional substance, is okay, but making jokes about marijuana isn't? If so, why?

Or are you saying we shouldn't even joke about Bleeprin?

~Neshomeh

I see it as some sort of dark humour. by SeaTurtle on 2015-03-31 19:28:00 UTC Reply

Bleeprin is essentially consumed in the same context as real-world drugs: it's a temporary escape from reality. It's completely outrageous that agents have to wipe their own minds to cope; it contributes to the hellish living conditions agents have to put up with. It's pathetic, inhumane, and just so over-the-top it becomes funny at the end.

Bleeprin, marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes... they're all bad in the end. Bleeprin is funny because it's a magic bullet for a fictional problem. Real-world drugs have nasty side effects and are no joking matter.

All that this tells me... by World-Jumper on 2015-03-31 22:05:00 UTC Reply

Is that HQ needs a support group for Bleep addicts. Perhaps a sub-division of Medical and FicPsych that comes together to try and help agents get off their Bleep habits. And before anybody says, "how could that be funny," have you seen any AA meetings in comedy? They can be hilarious! It's all about the extreme contrast of characters coming together to try and help themselves with a serious problem that nobody else takes seriously.

Also, I disagree that these issues are no laughing matter. We, as a society, seem to find stoners, alcoholics, and serious smokers very funny. Heck, as a community, we have agreed substance abuse can be funny. You see a lot of the same humor between agents that take Bleeprin and people that drink copious amounts of alcohol to "wash away the pain." Is substance abuse serious? Yes. Are there consequences for it? Yes. Can we joke about it? Absolutely.
Eh, I disagree with the last bit. by Neshomeh on 2015-03-31 19:43:00 UTC Reply

I get uncomfortable when people start saying "Jokes about X subject are not allowed." Some kinds of jokes about certain subjects are guaranteed offensive, sure—sensitivity and good taste should never be left at the door—but humor in general can actually serve to be enlightening and make people think about the issues in new ways; plus, humor can make the subject more approachable to people who might otherwise be afraid to talk about it. Therefore, it seems to me that banning whole subjects from humor makes the problems worse, not better.

~Neshomeh

My main concern... by SeaTurtle on 2015-04-01 03:14:00 UTC Reply

...is that people will portray drug use as something legitimately "fun" and "safe" when medical evidence clearly shows that is not the case. It's not funny-- it's a major health issue.

I may be reading too far into this, of course. I have a reputation among my friends for being the stick-in-the-mud, ruiner-of-fun guy :P

I'd say it's jumping to a bit of a conclusion, yeah. by Ekyl on 2015-04-03 05:48:00 UTC Reply

Just because something can be handled badly doesn't mean we should ban writing about it in any way, shape or form entirely under the assumption it will be. If we start banning people wholesale from even mentioning a thing in writing, where does it end? Portrayal isn't the same thing as trivialisation.

[Raises hand] by Huinesoron on 2015-03-31 21:19:00 UTC Reply

There's also the probably-not-so-minor fact that most psychowhatsit drugs - alcohol and nicotine excepted - are illegal in a lot of places. And while agents obviously do things to fictional characters which would be wildly illegal done to real people, I've not got the feeling we want them doing illegal things to each other or themselves.

And no, obviously they're not in any jurisdiction; I'm talking about what we want to see written, not what they should be 'allowed' to do.

I don't have an opinion myself, but I thought I remembered previous conversations on that theme.

hS

Yes. But it is also legal in many places. by World-Jumper on 2015-03-31 22:14:00 UTC Reply

I can understand why that would cause an author to hesitate before writing a character doing something illegal, but not how we as a community should encourage or discourage behavior of Agents. There is a list of banned substances. Anything that is not on that list, theoretically, is allowed. We, as a community, should offer caution towards characterization. If part of that character is that they are a teetotaler or a druggie, either is fine. What matters is why, and thinking about why, to make a three-dimensional character.

The list of banned substances... by Huinesoron on 2015-04-01 07:48:00 UTC Reply

... at one point came within inches of including 'every real-life illegal drug'. Which was sort of the point I was trying to make: that at a previous time, a lot of people thought legality was an important point to consider. As I said, I don't care a whit.

hS
The real life legality of an action... by [EvilAI]UBEROverlord on 2015-03-31 22:17:00 UTC Reply

Should not really have any bearing on whether a character in a piece of fiction can do something. My real cautions on it are 1)Can you actually make it fit tonally with the PPC without trivializing it and 2)Can you do it without getting the Soapbox. My opinion is if you can do both, I see no reason why not.

I agree with World-Jumper here... by Edhelistar on 2015-03-31 17:36:00 UTC Reply

A little Google searching got me to people who claim being addicted to Aspirin! Heck, you can get addicted to things that aren't substances, like: exercise, food, TV, even physical pain! The brain sees no difference, as long as you give it what it wants.

(Dopamine, that's what it wants)