high on death

Errors

dystopiate@gmail.com — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:36:11 GMT

Hello, friends, lj-friends, acquaintances, and strangers!

If you notice any grammatical, spelling, structural, formatting, semantic, or any other type of errors in my public or formal posts, please reply to the post and point them out to me. A lot of these essays I plan to publish for real someday, and I plan to improve upon some of them in the process. I am not always the best proof-reader of my own work, since I cannot be objective. So please let me know if you see anything. Do not feel like I will interpret this as rude or condescending; it will be very useful to me.

If I have used sentence fragments or informal or slang language, judge whether or not I did so on purpose and if it is acceptable in that type of essay by the context. It's better to play it safe and alert me of an error if you are unsure. If I want to keep it, I will thank you for bringing it to my attention and let you know that I am okay with that particular error. Otherwise, I will fix it and thank you enthusiastically.

Consider even the less formal of these writing to be scholastic essays, and critique them as such. If I have used phrases like "there is" or "it is" frequently, point that out; it is not formal. Contractions are not formal. If you can think of anything that you see that you wouldn't write in a scholastic essay, point that out. Also point it out if you see something that you think is worded awkwardly or is difficult to understand. Even if a whole paragraph is difficult to follow, or the order in which I wrote paragraphs or sentences causes the work to not "flow" well, let me know.

Any other type of criticism at all on my public entries is more than welcome.

Thank you.

Violence essays

dystopiate@gmail.com — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:48:09 GMT

Here is something I wrote for a current class, which reminded me of an essay I wrote a long time ago. I'm posting them both, because they're awesome.

DQ3.2 Answer SOC110 – Sociology in a Global Perspective
S. E. “Karma” Owen Prof. Matthew Irvin
March 18, 2009 Argosy University

“Critics often charge that the media's portrayal of violence plays a role in the recent shootings in high schools across America. How much of a role do you think the media play? What other agents of socialization also contribute?”

The word “media” is the plural form of the word “medium,” which means “a means of communication.” When pluralized, it generally refers to the various communication mediums “that reach or influence people widely” (Media, n.d.). However, when commonly used with the article “the” in front of the word “media,” the term takes on a new meaning. “The Media” in our culture consists mostly of mainstream news and entertainment mediums, such as television and radio programs, newspapers, magazines, the internet, books, and even things like video games. “The Media” doesn't generally refer to all media, just what is popular. Although textbooks, dictionaries, books and articles that are not as popular, and even conversations are technically “media,” they are not The Media. The Media is what people are talking about when the question its influence on things such as violent behavior in adolescents. They are not charging National Geographic Magazine with causing high school shooting; they are charging television, video games, pop music, and things like this. Therefore, I will capitalize the word “media” to refer to The Media that is being accused, to distinguish it from media in general and media itself.

Personally, I don't really agree with the critics that The Media's influence on people through its “portrayal of violence” plays a role in people's violent actions. I agree that it does play a role, as all influences in our lives play roles in our actions, but I do not agree with them, because I believe that they overestimate The Media's role. It seems like people are confused as to why something like high school shootings could ever possibly occur, and they are just grasping for answers, and The Media is a convenient scapegoat. If The Media can be blamed for adolescent violence, then society only needs to consider changing The Media and/or how much influence they allow it to have on them. However, many more factors come into play here. I'm sure that “critics” have some valid points about how The Media desensitizes us to violence and even glorifies violence, and maybe that it teaches people ways to act violently that they would not have thought of without its influence. But, I don't believe that even if these Media influences were eradicated that the violence would end.

There are many other agents of socialization that contribute to inappropriate acts of violence in our society. First and foremost, I would like to mention our biological nature. There is a genetic, instinctual component to our propensity toward violent behavior, including murder. Intraspecies competition is as natural to the human species as it is to any other. Animals have always competed for resources, and without the capacity to do so or to win, an animal dies. Therefore, an appropriate level of violence is an advantageous biological adaption. A lacking in capacity for violence will lead to certain death of the animal. Too much violence, however, can also be a problem. Culture is what keeps this in check. As social animals, humans have always lived together in groups, and the groups always have their own rules for how its members are to live. Those whose rules on violence were maladaptive died out (Evolution, inheritance, and personality, 2006).

It does seem that our current group or culture's violent behaviors are maladaptive, though. I attribute both this and the fact that we have not yet died off to the fact that our culture is breaking all the rules of nature itself. The need for some violence always has and always will exist. However, it would not be a problem at the frequency and intensity that it is today if people weren’t so dissatisfied with their surrounding world. I think that violence, like many other problems plaguing society, cannot be solved on their own, but would cease to exist if other problems were solved. Things like violence are inevitable results of a dissatisfactory society. It cannot be solved on its own. If we want things like this to not be a problem anymore, we must confront the problems that lead to them.

The core problem to which I refer, the “rules of nature” that our culture is breaking is that of imperialism. Before humans became civilized (domesticated, hierarchal, dependent on agriculture,) competition did not exist in the form of war as we know it today. Today, war is about hegemony. It is based on nationalism, ethnocentrism, culturally-based biases, and religion. Its goals are annihilation and conquest. Of course, competition for resources is still the crux of why wars start, but we, unlike our pre-civilized ancestors, don't just compete, we wipe out everyone that threatens our hegemonic ideals unless we can convince them that ours is the one and only right way for humans to live and that they should join us in our global conquest.

Yet we are taught in our culture that the blame for atrocities such as modern warfare lies in violence itself, not the way that we express violent instincts. We are taught that violence, in and of itself, is inherently evil. Religions especially perpetuate this notion, even though it's not very scientifically accurate. Not only do humans have an inherent capacity for violent behavior, but we live in a society that accidentally encourages it. Children are all taught that hitting and biting other children is wrong. All people are reminded daily that violence is wrong, but society usually fails to condition them out of it completely. The majority of people spend most of their lives suppressing and channeling their violent urges, but the general consensus remains that violence is a big problem in today’s society. In the civilized world, pretty much all forms of violence except those which benefit the government are outlawed, as if the law-makers are ignorant of the nature of violence, or they think they can forcefully change human nature. If that worked, it would work for everything that people want to decide is wrong, and there would be no such things as jails or police.

My next point is that, after a biological instinct that compels violent behavior, a major “agent of socialization” that contributes to maladaptive acts of violence is the nature of our culture itself. People don’t have adequate outlets for their violent urges. When they spend their whole lives suppressing them, frustration is increased, which obviously leads to more and stronger violent urges. People are, however, offered benefits for not expressing their violent tendencies. The main benefit that comes to mind is avoidance of persecution by the law. There is also an increased acceptance by mainstream society. Certain people care more about whether or not their behavior is considered acceptable by the public. This is why violence is more common among people who benefit less from this acceptance, such as people who aren’t planning on participating much in society anyway.

People are less likely to care about persecution for their violent acts if they are mentally ill, if they have not been taught what the social norms are, or if they have just given up altogether on society and its rules, laws, and norms. These people are definitely exemplified by people who shoot people at their high schools. These students had many reasons to disregard social regulations when the made the decisions to kill people at school. Most of them weren't planning on living after they were done killing anyway, so all consequences of their behavior, in their minds, were null and void. I believe that a lot of these people were probably mentally ill. Their mental illnesses probably came from social agents more than biological predisposition for sociopathy, depression, or whatever other conditions may cause such behavior.

The agents of socialization that may have lead to these mental conditions would be things like how they were treated by their peers. I remember the Media stories about the Columbine shootings in Colorado in 1999. When that happened, lots of people wanted to blame The Media for influencing these students, as if playing video games is what made them decide it would be cool to buy some semi-automatic weapons and kill a bunch of people and themselves. Don't millions of other people that are the same age play those same video games and watch the same movies and not kill anyone? The Media emphasized that the killers were very disturbed individuals, and that they were outcasts among their classmates and were seeking vengeance or something. “What motivated Harris and Klebold will never be fully known. A self-made videotape made public eight months after the shooting reveals the boys’ level of self-loathing and their hate for popular, athletic or minority classmates” (Shepard, n.d.).

There is another type of school shooting incidents that don't seem to make nearly as many headlines as ones like what occurred in Littleton, Colorado. I am speaking on high school shootings that occur in inner-city schools. These shootings are usually gang-related, or based on other criminal activities that go on off campus. I don't think that these shooters are mentally ill. Some of them may not have been taught the rules of society in regards to when and where (and if) it's okay to hurt someone. This is probably the case for a select few whose parents were not very active in raising them. However, I think that the majority of these shooters are aware of what society and the law expects of them but don't care. I definitely don't blame them for feeling oppressed and that they will never succeed (according to society's definitions for the word) by more socially acceptable means. It is harder for those born into poverty and in neighborhoods with a lot of crime and with less access to many resources, including educationally-related resources, to pursue The American Dream. Many of them give up at an early age on going to college and becoming a doctor or an astronaut, and instead decide that they will get out of poverty through criminal activities. These activities are highly-related to gangs, and rivalry is usually what causes them to shoot each other, even at school. So for these people, the social agents that influence their violent behavior are the hardship that they endure, their inequitable life circumstances, and the encouragement by most of society of the notion that the criminal route is the only way that they can realistically improve their lives.

In conclusion, school shootings are not so much caused by Media influence in that The Media portrays acts of violence. The Media is just showing what is really happening. Not telling us about it would not make it stop happening. The Media's influence on violent behaviors such as school shootings only goes as far as how it influences people's thought processes about themselves and the world around them. The causes of violent acts on the the part of individuals, acts that seem to serve no purpose for society as a group, are humanity's instinctual violent nature, the fact that people in our society have no acceptable outlet for violent urges and choose instead to use an unacceptable outlet, mental illness, a person's life circumstances, frustration with society, and more personal influences like one's peers and family.

References

Evolution, inheritance, and personality. (2006, April 3). Wilderdom. Retrieve March 18, 2009, from

Wilderdom, a practice in natural living & transformation: http://wilderdom.com/personality/L7-

2EvolutionPersonality.html.

Media. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 18, 2009, from Dictionary.com

website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media.

Shepard, Alicia C. (n.d.). The Columbine shooting case study. Columbia University. Retrieved March

18, 2009, from: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/columbine.html.

Violence Today
Liz Owen
English 101- Witt
08/02

“We’re only gonna die for our arrogance, that’s why we might as well take our time.” ~Bradley Nowell

Every day, I hear people talking about violence in society. They argue over whether violence in television and movies causes people to be more violent in real life. They shake their heads in dispassionate sorrow at news reports of school shootings, gang violence, homicides, rapes, terrorism, wars, and countless other abhorrent occurrences. They frequently discuss and debate possible solutions to the problem of violence.

Violence, in and of itself, will never cease. It exists among all animals. Intraspecies competition is as natural to the human species as it is to any other. Among homo sapiens, things like wars (defined as organized and prolonged conflicts between societies) are a form of population control.

However, one must question nature of human violence in regard to the frequency and intensity of violent acts. What is the necessity of brutal and torturous slaughterings, genocide, or cruelty to animals? Do multiple stabbings of an ex lover increase one’s representation in the gene pool?

So, why do people commit random acts of senseless violence? Is there anything we, as a society can do to fix this problem? If so, should we? If so, would we?

Although the currently predominant world view (yeah, the one whose perpetuation is destroying the ecological system of the planet) states that humans, as the most intelligent (and understood as to mean therefore best) earthly species, are somehow immune to the laws of nature, such things continue to affect us. What person of functional intelligence that knows anything about biology doesn’t also know, at least after it being pointed out to them, that an increased population of any species within a confined area (and the earth itself certainly serves as confinement) results in increased problems for that species. Too many rats in the same cage always end up attacking each other.

So it’s no wonder people have violent urges. Not only do humans have an inherent capacity for violent behavior, but we live in a society that accidently encourages it. Children are all taught that hitting and biting other children is wrong. All people are reminded daily that violence is wrong, but society usually fails to condition them out of it completely. The majority of people spend most of their lives suppressing and channeling their violent urges, but the general consensus remains that violence is a big problem in today’s society.

In the civilized world, pretty much all forms of violence except that which benefit the government are outlawed, as if the law makers are ignorant of the nature of violence, or that they think they can forcefully change human nature. If that worked, it would work for everything that people want to decide is wrong, and there would be no such things as jails or police.

People don’t have adequate outlets for their violent urges. When they spend their whole lives suppressing them, frustration is increased, which obviously leads to more and stronger violent urges. People are, however, offered benefits for not expressing their violent tendencies. The main benefit that comes to mind is avoidance of persecution by the law. There is also an increased acceptance by mainstream society. Certain people care more about whether or not their behavior is considered acceptable by the public. This is why violence is more common among people who benefit less from this acceptance, such as people who aren’t planning on participating much in society anyway, like in the ghetto.

The need for some violence always has and always will exist. However, it would not be a problem at the frequency and intensity that it is today if people weren’t so dissatisfied with their surrounding world. I think that violence, like many other problems plaguing society, cannot be solved on their own, but would cease to exist if other problems were solved. Things like violence are inevitable results of a dissatisfactory society. It cannot be solved on its own. If we want things like this to not be a problem anymore, we must confront the problems that lead to them.

Growing Food Starves People

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:59:58 GMT

This is another essay I wrote about a "technological change that has had the largest effect on life in this country."

Growing Food Starves People

S. Liz “Karma” Owen

University of Pheonix

How many people would buy a cell phone if they knew it was going to give them cancer after years of use? Probably many, because there is still a high demand for cigarettes today, even though we now realize how toxic smoking can be. How many people would buy wool blankets if they knew that in a couple generations, the world as we know it would cease to exist? The answer, again, is, sadly, probably many, seeing as that people are all still out there driving cars, littering, tearing down forests to build factories, and wasting all of the planet’s natural resources, such as food and water and wood and even petroleum. People continue doing all these things, because they don’t think that it’s possible to or they’re not willing to “go back.” But, if people had known when these destructive things were invented, would that have put them on the market in the first place? I’d like to think not.

Many technological discoveries and inventions have revolutionized the way citizens view the world and their lives, along with the way they live them. Some immediately took the world by storm, such as the personal computer (PC). Others, however, took more time before their effects on people’s lives was noticeable. When the automobile, for example, was invented by German inventor Karl Benz, in 1885 (Engelburt, 2006, para. 1), it was noticed by more by his peers in the scientific/inventive community than the public as a whole. It wasn’t until American Henry Ford invented the assembly line in 1913 (Saari, para. 1) that cars became popular. It wasn’t until the late 20^th Century that people started realizing that maybe the cars they’re driving aren’t so good for the world as a whole.

It took a very, very long time for people to recognize the harm in one of the technological advances that is going to end up killing the world. In fact, most people still don’t realize it. But none of the most harmful inventions like cars and factories would even have been conceived without it. The world as we know it was born because of it, and the world as we know it will die because of it. The demon to which I’m referring is the practice of agriculture.

Agriculture, in it’s over-simplified definition is, “the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products” (“Agriculture,” Merriam-Webster, 2002). Many early societies showed signs of horticulture or subsistence farming throughout history. “For example, hunter-gatherers in the Near East first cultivated rye fields as early as 13,000 years ago” (Pringle, 1998, p. 1446). The ancient Egyptians used the Nile river for irrigation of crops such as wheat, barley, and flax (“Agriculture, History of,” 2008, para. 6). The Incas not only grew food (such as corn, potatoes, and squash,) but they even developed ways to store and preserve it (“Agriculture,” para. 9). However, none of these societies created a surplus of food that would cause their population to increase. That is what anthropologists mean when they refer to “subsistence farming” as opposed to “agriculture” (“Subsistence Farming,” Merriam-Webster, 2002).

According to science writer Heather Pringle (1998), the first signs of agriculture occurred in the Middle East (the “Fertile Crescent,” if you will), about 10,000 years ago (Pringle, 1998, p.1446). This was what’s known as the “agricultural revolution.”

Agriculture was seen as a necessity for survival by the first known people to put it into practice (“Agriculture, History of, 2008, para. 4). It made plenty of sense at the time. They knew that when they planted seed, they grew into food. They realized that they could stay with those crops and protect them and turn them into farms. That solved their problem of finding food sources on a daily basis, which they considered a good thing. Who wouldn’t? At the time, people didn’t realize how it could possibly be harmful.

However, some people—or at least one group, the Summarians of the Fertile Crescent, started developing some really clever ideas for their farming. They developed tools and harnessed animals that go beyond horticulture (“Agriculture, History of,” 2008, para. 5;). This lead to a surplus in the food supply, and, therefore, a population explosion. The population of humans (or any other animal) is dependent on its food supply (Hopfenberg, 2003, p. 1). The world is overpopulated today, because of the advances in agricultural technology.

Agriculture obviously also leads to domestication. If one plants a crop somewhere, knowing it takes time for it to grow, that person must stay near the field or garden at least until the crop has grown and been harvested. Further advances in agriculture also made nomadic people domesticate themselves. Mythology of many cultures somehow switched the story around and created the meme that “the world was made for man, and man was made to conquer and rule it” (Quinn, 1999, p. 181). People now seem to believe that anyone who does not want to be domesticated (pets and other animals included, but especially humans) are mentally ill or flawed somehow. America has laws against vagrancy and there are no squatter’s rights whatsoever.

The surplus in food is also what led to an economic class system. If there is extra food, it must be stored. If there is a need for storage, there must be places to store the food. If there are silos or whatever storing the food, there must be someone there to guard it. A farmer does not have enough time to plant, water, and harvest, all his crops, and then to also turn then into something edible (in the case of grains.) So, he hires someone to cut them down, someone to grind the wheat into flour, someone to put it in storage, someone to guard it, someone to, perhaps, sell it to some other group of people who don’t farm themselves. Hence, a hierarchy is born (Quinn, 1999, p. 70).

Now what happens when there is a surplus population in a confined area living domestically? Especially if this population has been introduced to the concept of not all people being equal? War. Conquest. The people needed more land on which to live. They needed more land on which to farm. Since they couldn’t expand what they considered their territory, they took someone else’s. They pillaged their neighbors. Those would wouldn’t assimilate were killed off. That’s why most ancient tribes that are still around today, such as the !Kung Bushmen of Sub-Saharan Africa are around. Nobody wanted their land. It’s suitable for living (hence the Bushmen still being alive,) but it’s not suitable for farming. Most tribes did assimilate. They did so at least to the point where they were full-time farmers too.

That’s how every country was influenced by the advent of agriculture. What does that have do with this country? America in particular was influenced. The influence too place later here. Even after all of Asia, the Middle-East, and Europe had been converted, there wasn’t enough room for them and their farms on those continents. When Christopher Columbus or whoever it was first came to the Americas, the Natives were not practicing agriculture. There were many horticulturalist tribes, and ones practicing a sustainable form of subsistence farming; but they did not believe they owned the land on which they farmed, and they did not treat it as property (Quinn, 1999, p. 50).

Shortly after the arrival of a myriad of European immigrants to “the New World,” the Industrial Revolution occurred. This is when many of the poisons such as cars, cell phones, and the atomic bomb were created. Their inventors didn’t know any better at the time. They were just trying to make things to improve on the lifestyle of their communities. Just as were those who started the Agricultural Revolution.

In summary, the technological change that has had the biggest impact on the world (and therefore the U.S.) is agriculture, as it is defined by anthropologist/philosopher/ecologist and writer Daniel Quinn. Agriculture is an invention of the people of in the “Fertile Crescent” that saved many lives, and created many—too many. That lead to a class system, money, formal government, war, and conquering of unexplored lands. That lead to America (as a formal country) coming into existence. America is where the Industrial Revolution occurred. Many things were invented. Much more breeding took place. Now we’re stuck with half the planet’s population starving to death, many people miserable with their lives, and a huge hole in the ozone layer.

Einstein wished he’d never discovered the theory of relativity when he saw his epiphany lead to the creation of the Atomic Bomb (Long, para.10). One can only hope that Karl Benz and Henry Ford would have felt the same way if they hadn’t kicked off before Al Gore wrote An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. But what about the Summarians? If they had known that their brilliant idea of mechanistically planting crops and such would lead to most of the world living very unnaturally and even painfully, and with the planet itself having a bleak future at best, would they still have done it? Again, I’m afraid that they probably would. However, none of these atrocities are completely irreversible. Sure, we can recycle and use those weird spiraly florescent light bulbs and walk instead of driving to work. But what we really need is a paradigm shift. This is not the only way for humans to live.

Works Cited

Agriculture. (2002). Webster’s Third International Dictionary Unabridged. Merriam-

Webster. Retrieved from:

http://www.search.eb.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/dictionary?hdwd=agriculture&book=Dictionary&jump=agriculture&list=agriculture%3D19616%3Bsubsistence+farming%3D1080403 .

Agriculture, History of. (2008). (Shideler, James H., Rev.). Grolier Multimedia

Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from Grolier Online http://gme.grolier.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/cgi-bin/article?assetid=0004240-0 .

Engelbert, Phillias (ed.). (2006). Cars, Boats, Planes, and Trains: Who Invented the

Automobile?. Science Fact Finder. Retrieved from: http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/cars-boats-planes-trains/who-invented-automobile.

Hopfenberg, Russell. (2003, Nov.). Human Carrying Capacity Is Determined by Food

Availability. Population and Environment, 25(2), pp. 109-118. Retrieved from: http://panearth.org/panearth/publications.htm .

Long, Doug. Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb. Hiroshima: Was it Necessary? Retrieved December 22, 2008, from: http://www.doug-

long.com/einstein.htm .

Pringle, Heather. (1998, Nov. 20). Neolithic Agriculture: The Slow Birth of Agriculture.

Science, 282(5393), p. 1446. DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5393.1446 .

Saari, Peggy. (2001). Economics and Business, Who Invented the Assembly Line?.

Retrieved from: http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/economics-business/who-invented-assembly-line

Subsistence Farming. (2002). Webster’s Third International Dictionary Unabridged.

Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from: http://www.search.eb.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/dictionary?hdwd=agriculture&book=Dictionary&jump=subsistence+farming&list=agriculture%3D19616%3Bsubsistence+farming%3D1080403 .

Quinn, Daniel. (1999). Beyond Civilization: Humanity’s Next Great Adventure. New

York: Random House.

Ending America's Drug Problem

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:33:54 GMT

Okay, this is a paper that I wrote for my sociology class. I'm not entirely sure how the formatting will appear. It didn't exactly work out to copy and paste the document from ODT format to html, so I, for the first time ever, used the "rich text" editing feature on livejournal. I hope that means that the lj-cut still works. Let me know if this is simply impossible to read, and I'll add html codes to the document and re-post that.

I feel no real need to offer an abstrat or summary to get you guys to read it. You know me. Do what you want.

Ending America's Drug Problem

S. E. “Karma” Owen

Argosy University

“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” ~Francois de La Rochefoucauld, French author and moralist (1613-1980)

Owen 1

Drug users are criminals. “Almost 50% of juvenile offenders reported that they had used an illicit drug in the previous year while 34% reported doing so in the previous month. ... illicit drugs are involved in various ways in criminal activities from their use before criminal activity to their acquisition as a primary goal for such activity”(Johnson, n.d., p. 51). “Seventy-two percent of federal inmates, eighty-three percent of State, and eighty-two percent of jail inmates report that they have used illegal drugs at some point in their lives compared with 40% of the general population” (p. 48). “[Drug users] commit muggings, abuse children,suffer overdoses, and transmit diseases. They engage in unsafe sex, use welfare checks to buy drugs, and prey on family members. .... They are also responsible for most of the pathological behavior ... [in America]” (Massing, 1998, p. 12.Drug users are unhealthy mentally and physically. “Researchers have found a connection between the abuse of tobacco, cocaine, MDMA (ecstasy), amphetamines, and steroids and the development of cardiovascular diseases. Tobacco is responsible for approximately 30% of all heart disease deaths each year. Approximately one-third of AIDS cases reported in 2000 (11,635) and most cases of hepatitis C (approximately 25,000 in 2001) in the United States are associated with injection drug use” (Drug abuse and addiction, n.d.). Drugs cause people problems with their families and friends. “Substance-abusing parents provide less effective parenting than non-abusing parents” (Johnson, n.d., p. 69).

Drug use and/or abuse is supposedly the leading cause of crime, health problems, and social problems in the United States. I was going to open this paper with all kinds of statistics linking drug use to crime, mental illness, death, family problems, and all the other evils that are results of people using illicit drugs. However, after hours of research in books, medical and legal journals and magazines, and anti-drug websites, I was only able to find one claim about drugs being bad that was

Owen 2

actually based on a scientific studies. So, why, if these things that the anti-drug propagandists posit are indeed accurate, don't they cite their claims with evidence of their accuracy? Perhaps they are not accurate. In fact, I think that the reasons behind anti-drug propaganda rarely have anything to do with an actual belief that drugs are bad. I will not get into the actual reasons, as that this paper's focus is only on the harm that the propaganda does. The real drug problem in America is not the drugs themselves, nor is it the drug users. It is the misperceptions of drugs, drug use, and drug users that society holds.

The opinions of the American public are based off information that has been taken out of context, falsified, and exaggerated. “Research conducted by Roper ASW for the Council of Public Relations Firms found 26.5 percent of Americans believe addiction is the most serious health problem in America, placing the problem ahead of heart disease, cancer and depression” (Survey: Addiction a serious problem for nation, 2004). However, according to The U.S. Center for Health Statistics, in from 2003-2004, 13,063 people died of HIV. 861,190 died of heart disease. 32,439 of suicide. 567,468 of cancer (Deaths by Age and Selected Causes: 2004, 2007). They did not list “drug overdose” or any other drug-related causes. The two leading causes of death in 2003 were heart disease and cancer. Only 28,273 died of drug-related causes (Hoyet, et. Al, 2006).

People generally believe that drug addicts and users are uneducated, unintelligent, poor, usually minorities. However, this is far from true. People from all walks of life use drugs (J. Jerez, personal interview, March 6, 2009). People believe that all drug users are addicts, and that all addicts fit stereotypes. Some of these stereotypes are that drug addicts are thieves and criminals, that they have low ethical standards and little self-control, that they don't have any interests other than drugs, that they will do anything for a “fix,” that they don't have jobs, that they are lazy, that they don't have good relationships with their families, and more. I know first-hand that this is not true. There are many drug addicts that are fully functional and many drug users that are not addicts. According to several government-sponsored surveys, “experimenters and occasional users far outnumber addicts” (Sullum,

Owen 3

2003, p. 5). Even daily users more frequently do have jobs, friends, families, interests, and hobbies, and are educated and intelligent (J. Jerez, personal interview, March 6 2009; Sullum, 2003, pp. 7-29).

Initially, the government were the ones who promulgated anti-drug propaganda, from films like “Reefer Madness” to today's “Above the Influence” public service announcements on TV. They created slogans, such at Nancy Reagan's “Just Say No.” “Everything has a slogan, and of all the bunk in America, the slogan is the champ. ... You see, a fool slogan can get you into anything” (Rogers, 1925). Now, just about everyone is radiating this hype, including drug users themselves.

The programs designed to treat addiction certainly don't help. 12-step programs are the most well-known and generally accepted “recovery” programs in America. (I use quotation marks around the word “recovery,” because it implies that addiction is indeed a disease from which one must recover.) 12-step programs not only influence drug-users, but they influence the community as a whole. When people believe all the hype put out by a particularly influential group, a lot of that hype becomes reality. The 12-step groups have created the hype that “addiction is a disease” (Our symbol, n.d., p. 4). This statement has not been accepted my the American Medical Association (Trimpey, n.d.). 12 step enthusiasts concede that an addict is “powerless,” that they cannot control the amount of drugs that they ingest or with what frequency, and that they cannot control what they do while under the influence or in order to get drugs. They say that even after a period of sobriety, once one “relapses,” they will “pick up where they left off,” that is to say, even if they have been abstinent for an extended period, if they use a drug one time, they will use it again the next day and slip right back into addictive behavior. This is in fact not true at all. There are many people addicted to alcohol and other drugs, who, after overcoming their addiction, use the drug again and either don't go back to it at all or revert to a pattern of occasional use.

However, when these opinions become commonly understood as fact, everything changes. First of all, the addicts and/or so-called addicts are adversely affected. “When you're told all your life that

Owen 4

you're a certain way, you'll eventually believe it and become that way. These people [drug users] can't live up to their potential if they're conforming to a stereotype” (J. Jerez, personal interview, March 6, 2009). Many studies on addiction, therapy, and relapse, including one done as a master's thesis for a degree in substance abuse and clinical psychology done by Henry Tarkington of North Carolina, show that an addict is far more likely to retrogress into an addictive pattern of drug use upon “relapse” if they have been sober as a result of 12 step or similar therapy. Tarkinton's study compared three groups of allegedly alcohol-addicted people, all of whom had been convicted of DUIs. One group, the control group, was sentenced simply to community service and fines. The other two groups were ordered to seek therapy for their “alcoholism.” One group went to 12 step therapy, and the other one went to private therapy or secular groups for addiction treatment that were based on cognitive-behavioral therapy. All participants agreed to be surveyed. The results showed that the majority of the people did end up drinking again after their conviction. However, the numbers of people that drank addictively compared to those who drank moderately were grossly different between the groups. Those who participated in the 12-step therapy by far outnumbered either group in this regard. People who sought no therapy at all were the second most likely to revert to “alcoholism” after their first drink, and those in cognitive-behavioral therapy mostly just had one drink or drank in moderation after their “relapse” (Tarkinton, 2005).

People also are a lot more likely to act like stereotypical addicts if the stereotypes are deeply ingrained in them as truths. There are always going to be some people that can't use a drug without it getting out of control. There are always going to be some people that commit crimes and hurt themselves and/or others in some way because of drugs. However, this doesn't have to be the norm. Alcohol is just as addictive as opiates. However, there are more social drinkers and “functional alcoholics” than there are people who get arrested, hospitalized, ostracized from their friends and families, and fired from the jobs because of alcohol addiction. There are more people who have these

Owen 5

problems as a result of heroin addiction. This is because of the stigma attached to heroin use. It is illegal, so it must be bad. If people are told that they cannot use heroin without getting addicted, then most of them will get addicted soon after they start using. If they're told that they can't be an addict without also being a criminal, then many of them will commit crimes to support their addictions. They are just conforming to what they think are social norms.

These negative stereotypes also harm the rest of society. They attach a stigma to drug use, and once someone finds out a person is a drug user, they stigmatize them. “When a group of people is demonized, society feels the need to get rid of them. We jail them. We think that they are different people than ourselves, don't identify with them” (J. Jerez, personal interview, March 6, 2009). If someone learns that a person uses drugs, they might lose trust for them, thinking that they're going to steal from them or something. The drug user might get fired from a job when his boss learns he's done drugs. Even if the person was a perfectly competent employee, friend, family member, and citizen, his life can be ruined when it's discovered that he uses drugs, all because of this hysteria that the government, the media, and the recovery industry have created.

“If the hysteria is not recognized and acted upon, it will go on and get worse and worse... When hysteria is deliberately and systematically cultivated and formented by a governing party, it can be relied upon to get worse and worse, to spread and deepen” (Burroughs, 1995, pp. 69-70). So how can this be emended? “All people should address what pseudofacts are presented to them skeptically and look for evidence or proof, and not just assume that things are true because they're said to be true. People have to take affirmative action to change their worlds, look at things concretely, not base our opinions on dogma. People need to not approach things negatively and automatically just say 'no.' Always look for alternatives that are viable, logical, will work. [Address actual problems on a] case-by-case basis, [because] what are solutions to the problems [for some] are not the same for everybody. Therapies for drug problems are ridiculous for thinking that one solution fits all. ” (J. Jerez, personal

Owen 6

interview, March 6, 2009).

I personally hope to solve the problem of drug hysteria and misinformation in America. As Jose Jerez, Executive Director of Amanecur Behavioral Services, a substance abuse clinic in Carol Stream, Illinois said, education is the best method to change people's minds. Well I hope to educate people about the truths of drug addiction, drugs, and drug use, and about the falsehood of the stigmas, stereotypes, and hysteria. I have written this paper, first of all. I hope to expand it into a book someday. Most importantly, I am currently enrolled in college in order to get a clinical psychology degree. I intend to use that degree to run a behavioral health clinic, much like Amanecur, where people with mental and behavioral health problems, such as drug addiction, can come for help. I will treat every client as an individual and make no assumptions about them based on their drug use history. I will provide them with therapy that is appropriate to their particular situations. I will not perpetuate any negative ideas that will interfere with their treatment. In addition, if people want to continue to use drugs, I will not pressure them to change their minds before they are ready; I will merely encourage them to use safely and responsibly. I know of many Harm Reduction resources to which I can refer them.

In conclusion, contrary to popular belief, drugs are not the leading cause of drug problems in America; drug hysteria is. Drug users are not the criminals, social misfits, or bums they are made out to be. All of the hype surrounding drug use only serves to make life worse for drug users and the community. Perceptions of drug use must be changed if the drug problems in America are ever going to be improved. The public needs to be educated and to critically examine what they hear about drugs and drug users and look for proof of statements rather than assuming that they are facts. Only then can opinions change. When opinions are changed, then the problems related to drugs and addiction can finally be addressed for real, possibly actually solved. “The social problem cannot be solved until we look at it for what it is, rather than what we wish it would be . We wish for it to be a certain way,

Owen 7

because that's easy, and because that's something we think we can solve, and because it's in alignment with what we already believe. Don't label anything or anyone, because then you will only treat the label, not the person. Quit pointing fingers. Live and let live. Not everybody should be like me. People who want everybody else to be like them aren't thinking clearly about how the world would be if everyone was” (J. Jerez, personal interview, March 6, 2009).

Owen 8

References

Brady, Frank. (2009, January 14). Ex-DEA analyst charged with misuse of info. Law Enforcement Corruption. Accessed March 7, 2009, from: http://lawenforcementcorruption.blogspot.com/2009/01/ex-dea-analyst-charged-with-misuse- of.html.

Burroughs, William S. (1991). Just say no to drug hysteria. In A. Scholder & I. Silverberg (Eds.), High Risk: An Anthology of Forbidden Writings (pp. 69-80). New York: Plume.

Deaths by age and selected cause: 2004. (2007, August 19). National vital statistics reports, 55(19). Accessed March 7, 2009, from: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0112.pdf.

Drug abuse and addiction: One of America's most challenging public health problems. (n.d.). National Institutes of Health. Accessed March 7, 2009, from: http://www.drugabuse.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/magnitude/.

Guido, Jim. (1995). A crack in the wall: A truthful look at America's drug problem. Acheville, N.C.: Global Hearts Books.

Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD. Deaths: Final data for 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports, 54(13), p. 10. Accessed March 7, 2009, from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_13.pdf.

Johnson, Patrick B., PhD. (n.d.). The impact of illicit drug use on American institutions: Compromising the nation's health. The Partnership for a drug-free America. Accessed March 7, 2009, from: http://www.drugfree.org/Files/The_Impact_of_Illicit_Drug_Use.

Massing, Michael. (1998). The fix: Under the Nixon Administration, America had an effective drug policy. WE SHOULD RESTORE IT. (Nixon was right). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Moncur, Michael. (2007). Classic quotes: Quotation #36728. The quotations page. Accessed March 7, 2009, from: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/36728.html.

Our symbol. (n.d.) Narcotics Anonymous. Accessed March 7, 2009, from: http://www.12step.org/docs/NA_Basic.pdf.

Rogers, Will. (1925). Slogans, slogans everywhere. In Sterling, B. & Sterling, F. (Eds.), A Will Rogers Treasury (p. 71). (1982). New York: Bonanza Books.

Sullum, Jacob. (2003). Saying yes: In defense of drug use. New York: Penguin.

Survey: Addiction a serious problem for nation. (2004, December 6). The Partnership for a drug-free America. Accessed March 7, 2009, from:

Owen 9

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugIssue/Features/Addiction_as_Health_Issue.

Szasz, Thomas S. (1992). Our right to drugs: The case for a free market. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Tarkington, Henry. (2005). Cognitive behavioral therapy in substance abuse treatment. First Step Services, LLC. Accessed March 7, 2009, from: http://www.firststepgarner.com/congnitive.html.

Trimpey, Jack. (2005). Rational Recovery. Accessed March 7, 2009, from: http://rational.org/QuizPublicAreaWC2.swf.

I made a blog

dystopiate@gmail.com — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:14:29 GMT

Check this shizznit out biznotches. I'm now documenting all the IMs with people that IM me and are so stupid it's hilarious. Conversations you have that are the same can be posted too! Look at it.

idioticconversations.blogspot.com

Recent Picture of My Dreads

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:49:41 GMT

Yep, yep

they be.

dystopiate@gmail.com — Fri, 09 May 2008 19:25:41 GMT

Today, I'm gonna go in a public bathroom and record the sound of strangers farting and stuff with my cell phone, and then reset the recordings as ringtones. It'll be like, every time my mom calls, my phone lets out a big, loud, wet-sounding fart, and it keeps repeating until I pick up. Sweet.

Prisoner of War

dystopiate@gmail.com — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:17:18 GMT

Well, since the topic has come up again in my discussions, and since I posted a million things on the same day when i got out of jail, i don't think everyone has had the chance to read this piece. So I'm reposting something i wrong about the drug war while incarcerated.

23 october 2006
san Francisco county jail

“prisoner of war”

“because when the smack begins to flow then I really don’t care anymore…about all the politicians making crazy sounds…” ~ velvet underground

I have a conspiracy theory. We’ve all heard it before. Drugs exist to nullify the dissidents. There’s a whole school that believes LSD was created in a government lab in order to pacify the protestors of the Vietnam war and turn them into blithering hippies. I think this practice is still in effect.

Despite the apparent wants of the (brainwashed) public, at least those with the resources, skills, and fallacy that it matters to make their voice heard, drugs are still in circulation. Our nation claims to be “at war” with drugs. (personally, I find it hard to grasp the concept of combat with something that’s, in a way, intangible. We’re also said to be “at war” with poverty, AIDS, and terror). But, considering the strength of the US military, I think it’s obvious that drugs, at least those foreignly-produced would not be present on American soil if that were the true intention of the government. Of course, there are also well-known economic benefits to keeping the drug market alive, but that’s another whole can of worms.

Right now I want to mention the political benefits. I think that the drugs themselves serve a great purpose for the government, the system, and its supporters. The supporters, the people with D.A.R.E. bumper stickers on their cars, are going to be the last to recognize participants. Well all participate in a way, but we’re not consciously aware of our participation.

Anyway, I was wondering how drug addicts (and so-called addicts) are designated as such. I’ve always had the notion that I was “meant” to be a junkie. I know I’ve always identified with heroin addicts. I think there is something we all have in common. I’ve noticed it about heroin in particular, but there is something about all drug users. One could as easily argue that the similarity developed after the addiction as I could that the similarity is what drew us to the drugs.

But my most curious observations is what happens to us and what we have in common when we are not on drugs. I guess I can only really speak for myself. But I know that when I’m not strung out, I think a lot about politics. (I think about it anyway, as do those with whom I chose to surround myself, but then again, we all have our priorities straight).

I was always told, as rebuttal to my arguments against the system, that I would eventually find my place in it. Well, I have. I’ve found that there is a time to conform, to obey, to keep my mouth shut, to work, to spend, to lie, and to compromise. I discovered this in my addiction. And I frequently wonder: would I have discovered it otherwise? Somehow I doubt it, because the only time I do compromise is when my next fix depends on it. I take a pretty unfaltering stance when dope is not in the picture. For as long as I can remember, including the time before I started using, any significant length of time I spent “clean,” I spend in a state of distress, due to my political dissidence. When I’m not distracted mentally and physically by supporting an expensive habit and numbed emotionally to my dissatisfaction with the way things are, I’m plotting. I’m training myself to be a soldier in the revolution, because I simply can’t just bit my lip and deal with it, settle down, find a place for myself in a world I’m against, and live my life dedicated to selfish, short-term, shallow wants. At least, I can’t do it unless heroin is involved. But, can heroin make me forget I have beliefs at all? Well, no … but it can make me unwilling to act on them.

I’m not the only one in whom this phenomenon occurs. Nor am I the only one who has noticed a pattern. If we (the addicts) can notice it in us, someone else surely can, especially considering there are those whose passion it is to observe us (the dissidents) in the interest of national security.

Dope works to the advantage of the system. And this is the only reason I ever even began to consider significant enough to warrant quitting. But I won’t quit. So I will never the the soldier I need to be to make the changes I want to make.

It all makes me wonder if “they” knew all this long before I did. If they started studying me ever since my first utterance of discontent, or at the first sign that I might grow up to be somebody who can/would do something about it. If they began in my youth developing a plan to repress my compulsions and stifle my potential. Psychiatric therapy and medications didn’t work on me. (I initially refused to take the meds, because I don’t believe in chemically corrupting one’s brain functions. Only an amateur on the subject of opiates would call this ironic. Of course, psychiatric meds don’t have an immediate, overwhelming effect. Nor do they bring about such a luscious sense of well-being.) nothing else could have done to me what heroin has (and will again).

But I’m being extremely pretentious here. How much effort, time, money could possibly be spent on me in particular? Unless “they” have a crystal ball which predicted that I would grow up to overthrow the government.

But, they at least market drugs towards those of us with potential to revolt. An old saying (or perhaps a particular person, though I don’t know who – I think it’s French) goes, “happy people don’t make history.” Those less likely to be satisfied by a system are those most likely to revolt in america, which epitomizes capitalism (where citizens celebrate the freedom to choose between wendy’s and mcdonalds), the poster child for a system of haves and have-nots. The poor are the insurgents. The have-nots are the ones who need to be mitigated. It is no mistake that the majority of drugs are bought and sold in ghettos. Drugs are advertised so cleverly that people think we are rebelling by using them. I used to –maybe still do—think of drug us as insubordination, because “they” tell us that “drugs are bad.” They tell us they don’t want us doing drugs. They lock up people who do. They tell us they’re fighting a war on drugs.

This fact increased (shit, probably initiated) drugs’ appeal for people like me. Maybe that’s the real reason behind the so-call “war on drugs.” There are enough people who can’t be pacified by fast food and game shows. There are enough people who realize they will never have the American dream, or who never wanted it in the first place. But they need it to be our choice for nullification.

The idea(s) I’ve expressed in the preceding pages makes me hate the war on drugs more than the fact that I think drugs are good ever has. I feel used, played like a pawn.

But, perhaps the best way to combat their strategy is to implement one of my own, which I’ve already begun acting (but to some extent for slightly different reasons). I wish to educate the public on drugs and drug users. I wish to diminish (if not put an end to) drug hysteria. I wish to win the war, and I’m fighting on the wide of drugs. Addiction does not have to be as debilitating as many addicts allow it to be, and addiction is not mandatory to drug use. Maybe the enlightenment I could provide about the true nature of drugs could cripple the soldiers on the other side.

friends only

dystopiate@gmail.com — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 03:51:46 GMT

comment to be added.

edit: please check to see if you're already on my list before asking me to add you.

pictures of my dreads @ 1-1.5 months

dystopiate@gmail.com — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:03:45 GMT

front

side

back

top

bottom of side

a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

dystopiate@gmail.com — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 04:49:00 GMT

okay, so the other day, my mom was looking through the file cabinet, and she pulled out the test scores i had for those standardized tests they have you take in school to show how smart you are. she made me look at them all and then proceeded to lecture me on how i'm wasting my life by not being like a doctor or something. i'm inclined to disagree with her. intelligence can be used in many ways. just because i dropped out of college because i was in jail doesn't mean i just stopped using my brain at that point. but school does stimulate me, and i enjoy it. and it keeps me mentally in shape. i'm really excited about starting next semester, actually, and i'm going to jump through all the necessary hoops to make sure i get there. i don't even think i'm going to do any drugs until i've got my next phase of life established.

but anyway, here's how smart i am! i was going to scan them all, but my scanner started fucking up after the first two. the first one was the best, the second was average. i wanted to have a collective so that it would more accurately represent my brilliance, but i guess i can't tonight, because my scanner is being uncooperative. oh well. but lookie lookie look look!!! i'm a genius!

p.s. yes, that's my name, and if sun tzu is still looking, now you've got it, and i'm still not scared. and the e stands for elizabeth, hence liz. just so no one thinks i'm using someone else's papers, as if i had any ability to obtain them or would go through such lengths to deceive.

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:09:21 GMT

i wish everyone would quit their jobs and sleep on sidewalks!

dystopiate@gmail.com — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:52:51 GMT

08/14/07, 7:50AM.

I got released from prison yesterday, and, after a day of gluttony, i have concluded that good is highly overrated. In Dwight, i fantasized daily about all the ambrosial delicacies in which i would indulge upon my release. I imagined that I would quickly regain the 20 or so pounds i lose during my incarceration. But, much to my dismay, the foods were much more enjoyable in my fantasies.

In fact, everything is overrated. I also would fantasize about cigarettes, fresh air, music, human contact. (I don't get along with inmates and chose to spend my time in isolation.) Nothing is what I'd hoped it would be.

I fear that it might actually be easier for me to be happy in a situation of misery. A zen-like felicity overcomes me in my helplessness.

I am very much an idealist. This fact is an egregious one, because life is far from ideal. I, therefore, am a very maladjusted individual. I am distraught to face reality on a daily basis. I am perpetually being disappointed by the pragmatism and sobriety of daily life. It is no wonder I do so many drugs.

In Dwight, I had an excuse for not being able to draw much pleasure out of things. Nothing is very good there. But it's not supposed to be. Prison is a punishment; the convict is meant to be miserable. Knowledge of this fact makes the misery bearable.

In fact, iI made a concerted effort to be happy despite my circumstances - if for no other reason, then to beat the system. That is, i don't want the powers that be to really have any power over me. i considered my happiness to be a profound political statement. it said, "I disagree with your drugs laws. I will therefore break them and consider it civil disobedience. You will never stop me from doing what I want. You can only incarcerate me, and that does little to slow me down when I enjoy my punishment!"

Why can't I apply this strategy in the free world? It's not like I've never considered it. America is a prison. Why can't I say, "Capitalism is nefarious. It is evil for a government to subject its citizens to this atrocity. But I cannot leave it. I can live in small loopholes (or delusions of them), but I cannot escape to savagery. So I can either kill myself or deal with it. And I've already proven I can't kill myself. So I might as well deal with it the best I can." I know it is only my choice to be happy ot be miserable. Why, then do I select misery?

As the familiar saying goes, "the grass is always greener on the other side." In prison, the proverbial "other side" is very real. It lies, quite literally, on the other side -- of an electrically charged, razor-lined fence. But the grass out here is just as brown and lifeless as that in the recreation yard. And here, there is no guise of another side. Here, I have to accept, albeit with due chagrin, the finality of my passage across the proverbial "hill." Now where else can I go to find this luscious grass? Nowhere. This fact is obvious here, and inescapable. It is very depressing. I am the type who live for that other side, and there is not one in sight.

I almost wish I could go back to prison forever. There, have another world about which to fantasize. There, I can tell myself my misery is a result of my circumstances, my location as opposed to myself. I am lonely, because my only options for companionship are inmates -- the most ignorant, selfish, petty, and untrustworthy group of people I've ever encountered. I am bored, because my options for what to do are so limited. I am unhealthy, because I have no good food, medications, or room to exercise available. These are sorry excuses. I am always bored, lonely, and unhealthy. And here, I have no excuse. Here, it is worse, because I know it's my own fault i don't just make the best of things. I cope better in prison, where I have no control. I could go back to prison, maybe do life. Bus I might just adapt there and find a way to be miserable in that world too. If I did life, I could fantasize about the grass outside the fence, but it would do me no good if I knew I'd never make it there.

What I wonder is if this is what life is like for everybody. Maybe the "other side" is people's futures. They seem to want some things so bad that they endure some rotten circumstances in order to achieve these goals. But are they as disappointed as I am once they do? What about life being a journey rather than a destination? Can one enjoy a journey whose ultimate destination is really only death?

I picture myself on a train, riding from station to station indefinitely. I'm on my way to New York. The train is crowded and reeks of urine. The temperature outside approaches 100 degrees, and the train is not air conditioned, or, if it is, I sure can't tell. There are little kids all over, their incessant banter a cacophony of chagrin. I am stuck standing up, clinging desperately to an overhead rail. Every 30 seconds or so, I must shift myself around to regain my balance, switching the large box I'm carrying from hand to hang, readjusting the straps on my backpack. People are constantly walking back and forth across the aisles, getting on and off the train. The woman behind me ins talking to herself loudly and incoherently. The fat man in the seat in front of me is wolfing down a whole bag of hamburgers, three bites per each one. The woman sitting next to him is complaining repeatedly about her ex-husband to anyone who will listen and even those who won't. "The bastard!" she says. I can't wait to get to New York! I'm coming from Minnesota. I'm leaving there forever. It was miserable there. I picture New York as an empyrean of serenity and beatitude. I can't wait.

I arrive at Penn Station. I am finally here! I find the counter I'm supposed to report to and get in line. When it's my turn, I pull out my ticket and hand it to the attendant. "Let's see," she says, "Owen. You've been transferred to eugene. Gate C19, 7 o'clock." I stare at her in disbelief. She doesn't seem to notice my expression. I stand frozen with dismay. "Have a nice trip!" the attendant snaps impatiently. I turn around and walk away, scanning the overhead signs looking for C19. I wonder what Oregon will be like. It doesn't matter. I probably won't get to stay there either. I can't even remember how long I've been traveling. The longest I've stayed in one place was Minnesota. I never even left Union Station. I lived there for three days. I find my seat on the train to Portland. The woman next to me can't weigh under 400lbs. At least in Union Station I could stretch out to sleep on the hard wooden bench. I sigh and prepare for another three day journey that will probably just lead to another station, and then another long ride.

Somehow, I've got to learn to love the train.

eat the poops?

dystopiate@gmail.com — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:00:21 GMT

ok, say you were stranded on a deserted island, and there are animal poops everywhere.
because of the poops, you think there MUST be animals living on this island.
so you search for weeks and weeks until you're about to die of hunger.
you're unable to find any edible plant or animal matter.
do you eat the poops?

please answer yes or no, and if you want, why or why not.

a modest proposal

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:36:50 GMT

“Lift your head up high and blow your brains out.” ~bloodhound gang

have you ever wanted to do a great deed for the world? Have you ever wanted to end your own pain and the pain of humans everywhere? There are many problems in the world today. Suffering is everywhere. Think about it for a minute, and you will realize that not only do you experience pain, but so do the people around you. So does everyone else on earth, as well as the earth itself. Buy you can end all that. You must end all that. A truly compassionate and ethical person would take actions. There is really only one thing that can be done. All of the problems in the world would immediately come to an end upon your death. Therefore, you, reader, if you have any honor and decency to you, must commit suicide.

The misery that is your life cannot be alleviated. Suffering is an inevitable aspect of life. We all want things, and there are going to be times when we don’t have them. We can’t stop wanting things; the inclination is instinctual. The body alerts the brain when it needs energy and nourishment, therefore resulting in hunger. For those who do not have easy access to food, this can cause great pain. The same concept applies to all types of desire, and desire will never cease. It is the driving force behind all actions. It is present in all living creatures. Desire is only absent in inanimate objects and the deceased. The dead feel no pain.

In a more existential sense, your existence causes pain to everyone else in the world. Pragmatically, everyone suffers for the same reasons you do: the fact that they exist. However, philosophically, they only exist, because you believe they exist. If you would arrest your acknowledgement of them, they would cease to be. You could end all pain by killing everyone, but it would be faster just to ill yourself. It works even if you believe in objective reality. They may continue to exist (and therefore suffer) without you. But, if you’re dead, you can’t notice their pain and it is effectually gone.

more specifically, you life hurts the people that you know. Humans are inherently selfish. We are constantly hurting those around us. Selfishness takes precedence over all morality. In a moment of dire necessity, on will certainly sacrifice those he loves for his own sake. This is especially true in cases of physical torture. Anyone will give up any and all principles and people if you hurt them badly enough.

This is why you cause so much pain to those with whom you come in contact. Your selfishness results in greed, which causes you to dent things needed or desired by others. A certain level of self-esteem is required for a person to function. Out judgment of ourselves is based on relativity to other. Therefore, we must put others down in order to feel good about ourselves, and this criticism hurts them. We put our own desires as priority over those of anyone else, and the consequence is their pain. As a human, you will always be selfish as long as you live. To cease to be so would result in death, and vice versa. (if you were unselfish enough to give all your food to someone else who was hungry, you’d eventually starve to death.)
As a final point, your continued life on this planet causes you to remain inescapably detrimental to it. Humans (as we know them) are wasteful, parasitic, anthropocentric, and cruel unnatural consumers, leading a highly unsustainable lifestyle. And you’re one of them. We suck the earth dry of all available resources, and what’s worse is that we don’t even make full use of them. We chuck the remains over our shoulder: into the river, into a canyon, into a pile of similar refuse to rot away. We pollute the air, water, and land in the process, as well as torturing or annihilating other species with whom we are supposed to share the planet. We then proceed to spread to another area which has not yet been sucked dry. And our population continues to grow, meaning we continue to need more resources and to create more waste. This cycle has been going on for centuries, and all of civilization is trapped in it. There is no place to which to flee where humans do not behave that way. There is no way to escape your humanity or the consumerist nature that has been ingrained in you, conditioned since the moment you were conceived. You can’t go back in time, and you’re too insignificant as an individual to change the process. Human extinction is the only remedy. Might as well start with you!

In conclusion, for all the problems in the world, there is one solution. There is one ethical option for the decent human being. That option is suicide. Upon finishing the reading of this essay, I implore you, the reader, to take immediate actions. Find the nearest instrument—gun, razor blade, bottle of sleeping pills, vial of cyanide, bed sheet, whatever—and do the deed.

in victus by w. e. henley

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:36:10 GMT

out of the night that covers me,
black as the pit from pole to pole,
i thank whatever gods may be,
for my unconquerable soul.

in the fell clutch of circumstance,
i have winced but not cried aloud.
under the bludgeonings of chance,
my head is bloddied but unbowed.

beyond this place of wrath and tears,
looms but the horror of the years.
finds, and shall find me, unafraid

it matter not how strait the gate,
how charged with punishments the scroll,
i am the master of my fate,
i am the captain of my soul.

saved from salvation

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:33:11 GMT

ESSAY:

Saved from salvation
01/08/2006

my parents raised me as a christian, but they were still pretty liveral. I was more so. I’ve always been a person who questions everything. So I would say that I was “95% sure about god, 90% sure about jesus.” This was when I was pretty young.

In fourth grade, I had some indiscretions with my classmates, and my parents decided to move me to a private school. I was really excited when we visted number schools for gifted children, but thoroughly dejected when my parents’ final selection was a small Christian school.

At the Christian school, they taught me that many people are not actually “Saved,” even if they think they’re a true Christian. Just believing in t he major premises of Christianity and following the teaching of jesus were no enough. In order to be “Saved,” one had to say a special prater (in other words, paraphrase the sample they gave, and really meant it.) this prater told jesus that the suppliant not only believed he was their savior and the only bridge to eternal happiness, but also that he/she beseeched him to “come into his/her heart.” Upon saying this prater, the suppliant would then be overcome by a feeling of intense joy and inner peace. This was the feeling of jesus “coming into one’s heart.”

I concluded (quite logically), from what I was taught and believed, that since I had never said this special prayer or experienced this special feeling that I had not yet been “saved.” I believe that I was going to hell.

In fifth grade, my teacher asked everyone in the class who had been “saved” to raise their hands. I was one of the few piteous souls whose hands were down. Pariahs, staring at the floor, pretending that the eyes of our classmates were not nosily scanning the room, that the answer to a very personal question was not just put on display for our peers. It was at this moment that I decided to “give my life to Christ.”

I had said that special prayer every day—usually several times a day—for about a year. I never got that special feeling. So I believed that I was still going to hell. I felt my prayers were being ignored, or worse yet, rejected. I would cry regularly, asking jesus what was so wrong with me, why he wouldn’t “come into my heart.”

Eventually, my desire to conform overrode that for sincerity in my faith. I started to pretend I’d gotten the special feeling, meaning I was pretending to be a real Christian. Superficially, I told myself I believed I was and that I was going to heaven. But deep down, I know the truth.

There came a time when the truth was too overwhelming to ignore. I gave up altogether. I decided I no long wanted to be a Christian. I was 14 by then. I admitted that I’d never gotten the special feeling I expected. This time, instead of assuming that this meant something was wrong with me, I conceived that something was wrong with the idea that I was even supposed to have the special feeling. I relinquished not just the notion that the only true Christian had had this feeling at the point of their “salvation,” but Christianity altogether, deism itself.

The misteachings about Christian “salvation” are ultimately what cause my polemic against it. If I had not been to the Christian school, I might still be a Christian. Today, I feel enlightened because of the experience, and I’m glad for those night I spent crying and wondering what cause jesus’ rejection of my countless entreaties for my “salvation,” because reproof for organized religion was necessary for me to develop a lot of the beliefs that I hold today.

on recovery/what to say at an NA meeting

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:56:32 GMT

ESSAY:

23 november 2006 (san francisco county jail).

On recovery/what to say at an NA meetin

Hi, I’m liz, and I’m sober. I’m happy to be sober—not because I think that not being sober is a bad thing, but because I’m just that fucking zen. I like to be cool with my situation in this moment and love the here and now, because the here is now is all I’ve really got. And I am. I’m happy right now, and all current circumstances contribute to my happiness. So I am happy with all current circumstances.

Hi, I’m liz, and I’m sober. I’m not going to call myself an addict. I don’t denythat I have spent time addicted, but I don’t feel that the time I’ve spent in addicted behavior so dominates my personality that I should be branded as such. After all, I am not currently active in addiction. Like, does lying once, twice, even 50 times deem one a liar? If so, then everyone is a liar. But if everyone is a liar, the description has little meaning. It’s therefore reserved for those who lie so much that their lying is a dominating characteristic of their personality. Well, I don’t feel that addiction is so important to who I am to label myself and addict.

Introducing one’s self as an addict gives addiction way more credit than it deserves. I think this has a lot to do with why so many people “relapse.” They’re too focused on their addiction to be able to move on.

Have you ever heard or participated in a conversation that went something like the following?

Person 1: why are you not talking anymore?
Person 2: I’m not “not talking.” I’m just not talking.

It means the second person wasn’t making it a point to be quiet, he just didn’t have anything to say. The same concept can apply to drug use. Like, “I don’t want to not use, I just don’t want to use.” I guess it could be called passive, but that’s not a bad thing. Doing a back float for hours to avoid drowning is much more effective than trying to dog paddle the whole time.

Hating something doesn’t make you love it less. It just makes you feel bad when you have it. And you will have it, as long as you still love it. It’s only a matter of time. If you really didn’t like drugs, you wouldn’t do them. I don’t like ham, so I don’t eat it. I’ve never had to put any effort into abstinence from ham.

So, I think addicts need to admit that they love what they’re addicted to. No matter how much you hate them too (or at least the consequences). As long as you love something, you will probably come back to it when you have a chance, or when you don’t happen to have enough self-control not to. Even if you never use drugs again, you’re still a slave to them. You must abstain (and this requires concentration and effort): avoid “triggers,” attend meetings, whatever. Wouldn’t it be easier to just not love or want the drugs anymore?

No longer loving them cannot be forced. It can only happen to someone who’s really ready. Someone can’t be ready by being tired of the consequences of using the drugs, only by actually no longer loving the drugs themselves. I don’t like these meetings because they focus on making the addict hate something without first ending their love for it.

The only thing I can suggest is to find other things that you love, maybe that you love more. Then, instead of saying, “I’m not getting high because I hate the consequences of getting high,” you can say, “I’m not getting high because I have better things to do.” Don’t hate your addicted past. It was simply one chapter in the story of your life. If you’re ready to start the next chapter, do so.

If you’re not ready, don’t force it. Maybe consider what you can do to change the consequences you hate, or just stop hating them. Come to terms with them and accept them as a part of your life as much as drugs have been and will continue to be. Doing drugs means going to a jail sometimes because, unfortunately, drugs are illegal. By doing drugs your actions show you value the drugs more than you value never being locked up, since you knew drugs were illegal and that breaking the law is punishable by jail/prison time before you ever chose to do them. So you’ll spend time incarcerated. Admit it, deal with it, and make the best of it.

And when you leave, and you get high, admit that you’re doing it because you want to, not because a stereotype says some dead plant is strong than you. As soon as you acknowledge that you have control of your own wants and actions, your control of them is more powerful, and it’s then easier to change them.

what is america?

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:05:16 GMT

POEM:

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<lj-cut=what>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

POEM: <lj-cut=What Is America?>

december 7, 2006

it's the fear
behind all bravery
it is freedom
found in slavery

it's the affliction
of material wealth
it's the delusion
of emotional health

it's how obliviousness
has it's own clarity
when human diversity
is seen as a parody

it's the unity found
in a nation at war
it's justification
to kill the poor

it's unquestionable faith
in omnipotent government
and the undying belief
that bush has been heaven-sent</lj-cut>

san francisco county

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:02:49 GMT

Poem:

december 14, 2006

there's a block on the phone
and i'm all alone
and i'm beginning to doubt
that i'll ever get out.
when i'm counting the days
that four walls are my cage
with distortion of time
don't know i'm alive

when i think too much about where i am,
i wish for something else.
it's hard when i'm inside this place
to live inside myself.

but as i sit here in jail,
i tell my tale.
i write down my every thought.
someday maybe someone will read these works
and then i'll be glad i got caught.

i'm back.

dystopiate@gmail.com — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:00:43 GMT

wow, out of jail. i don't feel like telling my story right now. here's something i wrote last night. then a poem i wrote in jail. i've been writing a lot.

02/16/07. “home.” America’s policy on drug possession is similar to that on weapon possession: unjustifiable and therefore labeled intangible. War has become declared on “terror” and drugs. If the authorities do not like which of either the weapons or drugs they have decided for … whatever reasons … someone(s) has, vast consequences are bound to ensue. Alleged weapons possession (or let’s just say “WPMs”) wrought havoc and war this time quite literally—that is, if you can consider invasion war) on Iraq. Pointing a cell phone at a cop gives them the a-ok to shoot to kill. Structures are bombed for alleged possession (and/or manufacturing) of illicit drugs. Home invasions are committed to civilians by the police daily for alleged drug possession. Maybe it’s a conspiracy to lock up those of us that scare them! I guess they can smell my anarchist pheromones too… I digress. More realistically, the suits for whom the cops work fear the chemicals (bombs, drugs, etc.) themselves. They’ve learned to control certain ones. Someday, theoretically, America will catch up to reality and adapt to the chemicals. Most countries have. I fear America will never reach that level of sanity. The government is intimidated by their (the chemicals’) power. USGOV is a big pussy. It can’t handle anything it thinks could possible be stronger than it. In the wise words of fictional character peggy hill, “a gun is a penis substitute.” So is a syringe. I daresay USGOV has “penis envy.”

today

dystopiate@gmail.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:41:38 GMT

so the past couple days, i've been thinking a lot about how much more awesome i am than everyone else, and that makes me find it funny in a sadistic way that not everybody likes me and people have given up their chance to have me as a part of their life. like, "Haha, now you don't get to know the wonder that is liz. your loss." i dunno.

my tatoo

dystopiate@gmail.com — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:44:53 GMT

only did the black parts so far.

sell magazines.

dystopiate@gmail.com — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:02:26 GMT

friends only

dystopiate@gmail.com — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:25:53 GMT

Okay, people. My security has been infiltrated. I only recently made this journal friends only, but i kept everyone that was already on my friends list. Well, my exs mom reads my livejournal. Meaning, she is one of the people who requested an add to which i agreed. She probably created a livejournal username and profile and all of that purly for the sake of reading my journal. I certainly wouldn't put it past that crazy bitch.

Anyway, if you wish to remain on my friends list, you MUST reply to this message. I'll make it public. You must explain to me who you are, where i know you from, and why you want to have the privledge of reading my journal. If you're someone whose name i will recognize as a friend, then just leave a message saying "hey liz, it's me." and i will keep you. If you're someone from a community or something that i don't really talk to that often but is on my list anyway, then you have to leave a detailed message. Within a week, i will delete everyone that doesn't reply to this saying what i've requested.