Dan Savage addresses the gay rights / drug rights comparison

Ssssssssh

Don't tell Dan Savage, but there are gay people who don't like cock. ;-)

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:09:27 PM CDT

So what do you like, Fritz?

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:18:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Margaritas!

One the rocks with salt.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:19:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Me too

but I laso like cock!

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:24:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Flawed Logic

And here's why, IMHO:

Drug use laws are applied equally to all citizens without regard to any inate characteristic, like sexuality, or personal choice, like religion.

Marriage and sexuality laws segregate citizens into different groups and with unequal application for each group.

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:17:23 PM CDT

"Drug use laws are applied equally to all citizens"

Perhaps not.

There are a large number of people who can't use alcohol. They are alcoholics or allergic to that psrticular drug. Yet, that is the only legal drug available that they can use to alter consciousness.

Those people could use pot without negative side effects. Unfortunately, that drug is illegal.

So, in that respect, the drug laws do not apply equally. They favor people who can use alcohol.

Make sense?

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:25:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dammit

I hate it when I think I'm all self-righteous and sh*t and somebody comes along and knocks me right the f**k off of my pedestal.

Damn you Fritz. Damn you!

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:29:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK, from another angle then

The argument Rush is using is basically this: because his urge to alter consciousness is innate he should be able to legally satisfy his urge.

So let's apply that to other urges like pedophlia and serial killers. Their urges are innate so why should sexually abusing children and murder be illegal? Of course the answer is because those actions harm others.
If we ask does drug use harm others, the answer is yes - toking and driving don't mix. Persons under the influence do cause harm to others.

I do think cannabis should be legalized, I just think his rationale for it is flawed.


Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:52:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The drug use alone doesn't harm others

It is when it is combined with driving, caring for children, working many jobs (air traffic control, etc) that it has the potential to harm other people.

But, the point has been made that we'd still have laws against driving high and employers can require that their workers be sober.

We already have all of this covered under current laws. If you're too drunk or high to take care of your kids, they are put in foster care. Your boss can fire you for not being sober on the job.

I actually had a horrible experience involving a coworker who got drunk and left her toddlers locked in a van. She drank two bottles of wine, put her kids in their car seats and then went inside the house and passed out. It was 90 degrees that day and both kids died.

Here's the story: http://www.kidsandcars.org/la_...

The only thing I wonder about is that if harder drugs like heroin where legalized, would we'd see more cases of child neglect and death? Would more drug choices result in an increase?

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 23:06:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is my stumbling point too ...

1. Legal differentiation between alcohol and drugs is false and arbitrary.  Alcohol gets a pass only because it has broader history behind it in Western Civ.  Hell, Jesus drank wine.
2. Prohibition was a dismal failure that increased criminal enterprise and violence.
3. The War on Drugs is a dismal failure that increases criminal enterprise and violence.
4. Therefore, drugs, like alcohol, should be legalized but regulated.

Except that a new cohort of people who aren't responsible drug users, but who would find it easier to buy and may feel less inducement to monitor their use, could potentially endanger others increasingly more than in the past.  Is it fair, when irresponsible alcohol users already endanger others?  Nope.  

But then, there's already a lot of injury and death associated with illegal drug trade.  Would the potential increase in irresponsible users and resulting injuries/deaths be overwhelmingly offset by the decrease in violence among producers and sellers?  Are the health and lives of the new at-risk groups deemed more valuable than the health and lives of those who traffic in drugs—who may have turned to that life because of socioeconomic disadvantage and lack of any other real options?

Wiki has some intriguing information on how this is all going down in the Netherlands.  Like "Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category" but also "Demand for [detox/recovery] treatment is rising."  (I'm not vouching for the info & know I need to do more reading.)

Listen to your fairy Godmother, my dear: you will go to the ball.

---

by: 555catnap @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 00:19:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another angle to this...

...is that 62% of our nation's prisoners are in for non-violent drug offenses, and we spend well over a billion dollars a year on the enforcement of drug laws. That money could be better spent on drug education and treatment centers if the drugs were legal, while 62% of the prison population could be released, creating much-needed space for real criminals. And then there's also the strain that petty drug cases have on our courts.

And, of course, the drugs could be regulated and taxed, just like alcohol.

Not only that, but legalizing pot would also open up the return of hemp farming, and hemp fibers have all manner of wonderful uses.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:55:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not debating alcohol vs. drugs

I agree with your statement. My argument equates drugs and alcohol. The legalization of alcohol vs. drugs is another argument entirely.

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 00:30:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But that's not to say

that I think you shouldn't be able to legally inhale as much THC as your little heart desires!

Q: What is the politically correct term for "pothead"?

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:27:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cannabis User

That's what I've seen on all the pothead websites. ;-)

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:30:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

theory vs. practice

Drug use laws are applied equally to all citizens without regard to any innate characteristic ...

I think you probably meant "Drug laws are written to apply equally to everyone ..."  Practice is another thing entirely.

It's oft repeated that wealthy white coke users aren't hunted as enthusiastically or prosecuted as vigorously or convicted as often as non-privileged users and sellers of street drugs.  Tim Wise wrote an article entitled, "Hey Dude, Where's My Privilege?  Race and Lawbreaking in Black and White" that puts this in sharp relief.  (Gotta click on "Blog at Red Room" and then scroll to the article; I dunno how to link to content that changes when the web page stays the same.)


Listen to your fairy Godmother, my dear: you will go to the ball.

---

by: 555catnap @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 23:21:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? How is Drug Use not a Personal Choice?

You might have a point with the innate characteristic angle, but you lost it with the religion angle.  How is my choice to consume cannabis a choice worthy of lesser protection than the choice to consume communion wafers?

Lest you go First Amendment on me, may I bring up the Indians who are allowed to use ayahuasca religiously, but the Rastafarians aren't allowed to use cannabis religiously?

I seem to live in a society where drug laws are used to segregate citizens into different groups (drinkers vs. tokers) with unequal application for each group (they can get high all they wish, I may not.)

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:03:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your poll doesn't have enough choices

I haven't used drugs myself since I was in my twenties, during the Pleistocene.  (While pot gives me a nice high, it also gives me ferocious sinus headaches. The other drugs I've tried, I've found quite actively unpleasant.)  And I do think that the right to use drugs is an issue of personal freedom, and I couldn't support an end to the idiotic "war on drugs" more enthusiastically.

But the parallel you draw strikes me as shaky at best.  However you want to spin it, drug use (specifically, as opposed to a general urge to feel good) IS a choice.  There are all kinds of ways to feel good, a whole range of choices available to anyone looking to feel better, and all of them should be legal.  Being gay involves finding another person of the same gender for gratification, period (though obviously the specific form of that gratification varies from couple to couple and group to group).

And needless to say, there are a lot more paths to personal gratification than just drug use.  I get a bigger, better high from writing than I've ever gotten from any drug, for instance.  But I don't think of writing as an identity; it's just the way I express myself.  Just because everyone feels a need to get high (however broadly you define that) doesn't make drug use an identity in the same way gayness is.

Your argument is a very provocative one, and I do think there are some valid similarities.  But I think you're pushing it way too far.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:20:22 PM CDT

Too Far>

"But I think you're pushing it way too far."

40 years ago people said the same thing to queers.

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:32:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I meant he's pushing the analogy too far, not his demand for fairness.

I think I established quite clearly that I support full legalization and an end to the damnfool "war on drugs."  But that doesn't mean I have to buy Russ' analogy.

He argues that the desire for pleasure is universal in the human race, so therefore the specific desire to gain pleasure through drug use is "an identity."  That strikes me as incredibly squirrelly logic.  The desire to eat is universal.  Can it then be argued that the specific desire to eat pizza is an identity?  

I repeat: there ARE certain points of analogy, but they can't be pushed too far.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:28:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, but now we're comparing number of choices

Your point seems to be that humans have X number of choices to get high and Y number of choices in gender of sexual partner, where Y = 2 and X > Y.

I am stretching metaphors for provocation's sake, indeed, but does this equation mean that if we were a species where Y > 2, the argument that "you can marry any woman, wiman, haman, homan, or aman you like, but no man" would then become valid?  You say being gay means of the choices Y1 and Y2, you innately must choose Y2, and that is more deserving of protection than a person who innately feels they must pick X420 out of a sample of X1...X10000?

As for identity, have you seen the plethora of cannabis community magazines?  High Times, Cannabis Culture, Heads, WeedWorld, West Coast Cannabis, etc.?  It may be an identity forced upon us by outlaw status, but it is certainly an identity.

Plus, when it comes to being identified, to my knowledge police and employers have no urine screen or blood test to detect if you're gay.

Thanks for the perspective though; I think it is helping me fine tune my argument.  "Stoner" is beginning to coalesce in my mind as a concept between the innate characteristic of sexual being and the chosen mental state of religion.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:14:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Civil liberties for everyone!

OKay, I have to agree with Dan in that using drugs is not at all like being gay. And, some GLBT people will freak out over being compared to drug users... especially heroin users.

I know more than a few hetero Black people that get really pissed off when the GLBT community draws comparisons between it and the Civil Rights Movement. With some justification, after all, we never had to deal with slavery and while our civil rights movement really didn't start in earnest until he Mattachines formed-some would even set the date even later, at Stonewall, since the Mattachines weren't very effective. That's within living memory for a whole lot of people, and we have made some pretty impressive advances in that span of time-compare that to the river of blood Black civil Rights leaders had to wade through from WEB DuBois before they had their first major gains in the 1960's, and you can see where somebody might think, "gee, you folks sure do have it easy". Add this to the bigotry born out of centuries of being stigmatized as 'oversexed' (whatever the hell that means), fear of 'one of them sleeping with our wimmin" and the influence of religion in that civil rights movement, and you can see why they would freak out at a group that is primarily defined in terms of sexuality as identifying with them. After centuries of being verbally assaulted with the premise of sex, having sex knock on your door and say "Hi! I'm just like you!" probably hits a few buttons.

On the other hand, our civil rights struggle IS alot like the Black Civil Rights struggle, in the sense that every civil liberties battle-from labor to suffrage to Jim Crow- is basically about the same idea-the idea that the US should be a meritocracy where a person is judged by their character instead of externalities irrelevant to their merit. My sexuality and skin color are both completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not I should have access to the good life. Then again, using drugs or not should also be irrelevant to the discussion, if you're functional and its not taken over your life.

At the same time, we've got the religious right wing comparing homosexuality to mental illnesses-like drug addiction- and one of the main planks of our movement is that we do not choose sexuality-unlike drug use, which you definitely choose. So, alot of GLBTs are gonna freak out if you say that our civil liberties movement is the same as that of a heroin addict's.

Kinda like when I meet a straight Black guy that goes berserk when he hears someone compare GLBT civil rights to Black civil rights.

In the end, its all civil rights.

Whats really setting everyone off is not the real point of civil liberties movements. Its the fact that those who have opposed them and oppose them now turn us all against each other, by saying to the straight Black guy, "Oh, you're crazed with sex!" and the Gay guy, "Oh, you're mentally ill! Like an addict!". The baggae of hearing that crap from the bigots makes us recoil from each other in horror.

And this is divide and conquer in action.

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:22:58 PM CDT

Some LGBT had to deal with slavery

Slavery was not hetero specific and did not pass our LGBT brothers and sisters by, so it's wrong to state that homosexuals did not have to deal with slavery.  

Not to mention that we as a group were rounded up and gassed in the Concentration camps, so we have, as a people, suffered just as much as African Americans did under slavery.

We so often forget or do not know our own history as a people.  Everything that has happened to someone in this world has indeed happened to a LGBT person.  We cross ALL lines.

And no, we as gay men didn't have to deal with them worrying if one of us was going to sleep with their wimmin, but our lesbian sisters have.  And we gay men had to deal with them worrying that we were going to be sleeping with one of their boys.  Not too much different in my opinion.

But again, we shouldn't be compared to addicts (for just those reasons you state) but we should be able to make the choice of what we put in our bodies, they allow all kinds of dangerous crap in our food supply that they don't even bother to warn us about, so why shouldn't we be able to use a little recreational substances other than booze.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:22:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perspective is everything

You are describing things from the GLBT point of view, and you're doing it accurately.

I would like to ask you to shift your point of view; pretend you are a heterosexual Black person, and think then about how it would feel if a White GLBT person were to come up to you and claim that the GLBT civil rights struggle itself was comparable to the Black Civil Rights struggle.

Slavery was not directed at GLBT people. It was directed at Black people. Yes, there were Black GLBT people that were slaves. But they were not enslaved because they were GLBT, were they?

Now, shift your point of view again to that of a drug user. From their perspective, the government intruding in what is a very personal experience. This experience is, in substance, comparable to the GLBT experience. Just as the government endorses some relationships (heterosexual) and not others (GLBT), it also endorses some drug use (alcohol. tobacco, prescription drugs, caffeine) and not others (marijuana, LSD, mushrooms). This is hypocrisy of the lowest order, in both cases. The drug user sees themself (rightly so) as being denied the civil liberties enjoyed by other people, and GLBT people (rightly so) see themselves as being denied the same civil liberties enjoyed by other people. In both cases, neither group is being judged ont he basis of merit-a pothead that is an overachiever should enjoy success at the same rate a no-drug user that overachieves should. And yet they don't-one is subject to arrest, being denied financial aid to go to college, being barred from areas of employment. Sound eerily familiar to something both you and I experience? It should.

Now, shift your perspective back to the GLBT perspective. We've been accused of being mentally ill, the way drug addicts are. A drug user (not necesarily an addict) comes up to you and says, "Hey, my civil rights struggle is like yours". They are correct. And yet you resent being compared to them. You then go to a heterosexual Black person and say, "Hey, my civil rights struggle is comparable to yours" You are correct, however, he will look at how the GLBT civil rights struggle really didn't begin in earnest until 1969, whereas the Black Civil Rights Struggle began in earnest in the 1860's, and involved horrors that the GLBT civil rights participants did not have to face-the Holocaust was not part of the GLBT civil rights struggle, neither was slavery, so you can shut up about that now. Look at the old pictures of people throwing bricks at the heads of people marching through Selma. I've been on alot of GLBT pride marches, and nobody has ever thrown a brick at my head. Sure, they shouted some foul shit and held up some nasty signs-but nobody fired gunshots into the crowd, and the cops didn't sic dogs on us.

Perception is what I'm getting at. Can you step outside of yourself, and see how you look to other people? Can you then look at them, and think about whether your perception si reality-or is it just perception?

I'd argue the latter. The truth is, everyone deserves civil liberties, and every quest for civil liberties is valid. We absolutely should live in a true meritocracy, where race, sexuality, gender, drug use or nonuse, are all non factors, along with anything else unrelated to merit.

We don't though. Partly because of how we see each other. Divide and conquer means if they tell you drug users are icky, you won't try to help them-maybe will even undermine them, out of resentment. Divide and conquer means heterosexual Black people will do the same to you-because they've been told GLBT people are icky.

The truth? Nobody's icky. Everyone deserves to be free.

But what do you see?

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:38:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, that's a helpful analysis

In the end, we all deserve to be treated equally for our character, all our civil rights struggles share some similarities but all have their own unique qualities, and there is no litmus test of time length or enormity of suffering needed to qualify for fairness.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:17:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Drugs and The Gays

Some nice provacative arguments and comparisons here.

For the record, I believe that all drugs should be legalized.  

Now are illegal and legal drug users civil rights comparable to the Gays struggle for civil rights?

No, even though I voted for the 'kinda' choice on your poll.

A drug user is simply not a drug user until he starts using. A drug user is no longer a drug user when he stops.

A gay person is gay, regardless if they 'act' upon their urges or not.  A gay person does not stop being gay if they stop having sex with the same sex.

I see that you have made the case that drug users may have a genetic leaning toward drug use but without the drug the drug user does not exist. On the otherhand, a gay person may stay celibate or heterosexual for their entire life, but they are still gay. Not sure I can convince you of that, but turn the tables.  Insert straight where I have used the term gay and you may catch my drift.

Lastly, the drug user needs an outside substance to become a drug user. In the case of the Gays, the homosexuality is mostly internal and does not require an external force to exist such as the same sex. A drug user must use drugs to be a drug user.

Having said all of that, drugs should be legal, safe and there should also be programs available to those who wish to seek help to abstain if drug use has made their life a living hell or otherwise.

I know this short post is not my best attempt at explaining the differences between ones sexuality vs. ones propensity to use drugs.  Your argument has merit but dig a bit deeper and there is no comparison.  

I will end by saying this.  Human's know far too little about both drug abuse, the casual user who does not get addicted to drugs, genetic propensity towards drug use and human sexual preference, sexual identity and sexuality.

From this standpoint, you can make almost any argument that you wish as we simply do not truely know what makes a persons sexual identitiy, preference or orientation exist at all, nor do we fully understand what addiction or simple drug use and how drugs affect people differently is all about.

 

vanhattan

---

by: vanhattan @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 00:06:04 AM CDT

What about alcoholics?

I don't know about this:

A drug user is simply not a drug user until he starts using. A drug user is no longer a drug user when he stops.

Learning from my father as he became a drug and alcohol counselor, following his recovery from alcoholism, I was told that people were born alcoholics even before they took their first drink, they would be alcoholics even if drink didn't exist, and if they quit drinking alcohol they would still be an alcoholic.

That's the "disease model" of alcoholism and I'm not sure I buy it.

You make a good point - without the drug the drug user doesn't exist - but would the reverse extend to the gay person in the same extreme?  You compare it to celibacy or faked heterosexuality, but in those cases, a person is rejecting sex or having sex, but still the sex exists for one as a frame to form sexual identity.  What if we took Gay Infant and allowed him to be raised by wolves with no human contact for his entire life - would he know he is gay?

You're probably right that I'm stretching quite a bit to make the comparison - I stretch to learn.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:24:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Misunderstanding each other

I think the issues that cause a drug attack to identify with a homosexual in terms of feelings of oppression and dealing with acceptance are very valid. not because it is similar but because someone seems to understand and identify with us. More so because it is not an issue on a sexual level.

We live in a world where we only slightly misunderstand each other. just enough to castigate our fellowman rather than find opportunities where we can relate with each other and validate each others circumstances. Its criminal that blacks and women and anyone who has dealt with the stigma of second class citizenship can't understand where gay people are coming from simply because we are gay. Christians especially should reconsider their intolerant stance in America given that the reality of this republic is directly based on escaping the intolerance showed to them by Europeans.

Wake up people. we should all be grateful; for those who identify with us as much as we should be grateful for those of us we identify with.

Always thinking about it...

---

by: kudo451 @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 00:53:52 AM CDT

this doesn't work for me, specifically

The more I think about it, the more I like it.  Everybody wants to get off - sexually and mentally - but society has criminalized or rendered taboo some of the choices on the menu.  I'd say that the shared goal of both movements is to allow people to pursue that sexual or mental high in any way they see fit so long as they do no harm to others.

And this is a major place -- if not the place -- where what it means for me that I am a lesbian seems strongly opposed to how lesbian is defined in this society and at least some parts of "the movement."

The definition that doesn't fit for me is: Individuals pursuing their individual highs (desires) through relationships with other individuals. I am supposed to be an individual who desires to have sex with other individual women. We meet each others' individual needs. Connection, love, sex -- all is supposed to be about seeking out something I can consume, take, experience as an individual seeking to fulfill my individual needs and desires in order to as you put it, "get off."

But for me -- no. Just just -- no.

Why I chose to be a lesbian before I was born has nothing at all to do with an individual self seeking to meet individual self needs or desires. It was/is a choice related to the fact that I am actually not an individual at all (I'm not), but rather I am a small part of a larger whole that itself is part of an even larger whole and on from there. This for me is concrete perceived reality, not theory/words only.

The real issue for me when it comes to my sexual orientation is: what does this do for my ability to function as I am supposed to as part of what is larger than me? I am not seeking to consume anything to make myself feel a certain way. For me desire, including sexual and relationship, is related in very specific concrete ways to my function. Functioning as I am specifically made to function, in interaction, to serve the larger whole is what feels good to me and what I seek even when I can't do it. Not being able to function that way ... it hurts. A lot.

So instead of

[getting off] .... in any way they see fit so long as they do no harm to others.

where the standard is doing no harm to others (other separate individuals?), my standard related to the practice of my sexual orientation is: increasing my ability to fulfill my responsibilities as a specific small part of something larger than me.

I totally understand that what I am describing for myself is not applicable to everyone, or at least that seems to be the case from my observations. I am not suggesting this as a definition applicable to everyone. But it is what I am.

And I am made invisible by universalizing definitions (which are everywhere in this society in my experience, including in the movement) that assume I am a lesbian as an individual meeting individual needs and desires.  Because I am not an individual and that way of understanding what's going on just does not describe my sexual and other related orientation toward other women.

---

by: michelle @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:35:38 AM CDT

Excellent point!

Your comment made me think what being gay really means to me. There is an element of sacrifice and community that certainly can't be described as a need to "get off" or however else someone may want to put it.

I can't imagine that feelings of responsibility, family, and commitment are part of the desire to get high.

Thank you. You changed my perspective.

Being gay or lesbian is not simply about individual desires. There is an element of that in our basic sexuality. But, you're right that the need to interact and be part of something larger -- a couple, a family, a community or all three -- is also a major driving force.

I think what you've described is closer to our reality. Maybe most people are afraid to admit their dependencies and see themselves a small part of something larger than themselves. I suppose that could be the result of ego.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:02:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Using versus Being

Fritz mentioned that alcohol has a kind of special exemption versus many other drugs, but there is a caveat in that use above a certain level is still disallowed such as Public intoxication laws and DUI laws. I am one of those that really don't condone use of alcohol either, including beer, but at present I don't try to enforce my personal rule on drinking on others.

I say the above as background to Using versus Being, in that using mind altering drugs, including alcohol, drive actions that do real damage and loss of life. Being transgender does not drive a person to becoming a prostitute. Transphobia is the cause of transgender people becoming prostitutes. Being gay does not cause a person to become homeless. Homophobia causes a gay person to become homeless.

So for Being, the result is because of other peoples actions.

Whereas Using can lead directly to loss of life, maiming or killing of others (auto accidents et. al.), prostitution to support a habit, murder because of mind altered states, robbery to support a habit, homelessness due to being unable to work, burned down houses (tobacco as a drug) and more.

Simple example of Being versus Using - The airline captain and first officer flying the airplane you are on. Being Transgender or gay does not affect the safety of your flight, but using a mind altering drug most definitely can affect your safety.

Being is all the time and doesn't affect peoples safety, Using requires controls, limits on use and time factors to reduce what is definitely risk to life and health of the user or those the user comes into contact with.

Using is NOT a Civil Right, Being IS a Civil Right.

---

by: ab0ng @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 08:05:40 AM CDT

I think that distinction is dangerous

My main problem is what you're saying is that civil rights should depend entirely on a definitions game: just where do you draw the line between "doing" and "being"? Who gets to define what "being" really is? If you can "stop doing", why exactly can't you "stop being"?

I'll give you several hints:

• It has a lot to do with why lots of butch lesbians and nellie men feel their more gender-conformant brothers and sisters "aren't really part of the movement".
  
• It has a lot to do with why both gays and lesbians feel bisexuals aren't really "part of the movement". If they acknowledge they exist at all.
  
• It has a lot to do with why MichFester set want to keep transwomen "out of their movement".
  
• It has a lot to do with why passable post-op transsexuals feel like they are "no longer trans" and have nothing at all to do with the transgender community.
  
• It has a lot to do with why all those latter groups disagree with the former ones.
  

I won't deny, it's an effective political tool. I just wish the queer community would stop "drinking its own kool-aid" and realize its limitations.

---

by: raya @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 16:24:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Freedom of Thought

Now hold on.  Using marijuana doesn't cause someone to become unemployed.  Cannabiphobia leads to pee tests that cause a marijuana user to become unemployed.

A few people on this thread fall into the idea that using drugs is what makes you a drug user.  That's valid to a point, but taken too far is like saying eating communion wafers is what makes you a Catholic.

For me, my marijuana use is a part of my identity.  But when I'm dry for a month, I haven't ceased being a stoner, either mentally or on a pee test.  And now, in the age of Google, where "Russ Belville" pulls up 290,000 pages of me and a pot leaf, I will be a stoner forever.

Yes, if you're using a mind altering drug while flying the plane, you're likely to wreck it.  Just as if you and the co-pilot were having gay sex while flying the plane.  But just being a stoner pilot doesn't make you any worse a pilot than the gay pilot.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:33:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think there are legitimate reasons to limit -- conditionally -- the use of some drugs

While I agree that the choice to use drugs is a matter of personal freedom, and that parallels can be drawn with the civil rights movement. I also hold that it is legitimate for the law to limit reasonably such freedoms as may harm others. Allowing blacks to use the same swimming pools, drinking fountains and hotel rooms as whites will not harm whites; allowing same-sex couples to get married and have the same legal rights and protections as different-sex couples will not harm different-sex couples. Allowing a person to drive a car while under the influence of a mind-altering substance can -- and far too often, does -- cause harm to others.

That, I think, is where the dividing line between drugs and other civil rights can be found.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 08:34:56 AM CDT

Of course you don't allow toking and driving

Just like we don't allow fucking and driving.  The DUI angle is a red herring.

Yes, drugs should be regulated.  I'd support reasonable quantity limits for pot and mandated prescriptions for heroin, for example, because there is a public interest at stake.

The question is whether taking drugs is a civil right to be protected as much as sexual orientation, and I say that it is, because essentially we're talking about freedom of thought, expression, and identity.  If I am not sovereign over my body and mind, am I truly free?

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:39:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, not even close.

Drug legalization is about personal freedoms and personal choice. Same-sex marriage and gay rights are about equality.

Show me people who are innately, immutably unable to enjoy a fulfilling life without pot use and you'll have an argument. Until then I find it somewhat obnoxious, and that's coming from someone who's no stranger to pot.

---

by: Pender @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 09:11:55 AM CDT

ok, since we still have one day of incivility left....

I have a question that I'd like to ask you Russ.  Why, when you wrote your letter to Dan Savage, did you feel the need to proclaim your heterosexual status after saying that you write for PHB?

Mr. Savage, I loved your column's response to the heroin user who asked about the parallels between gay civil rights and use of drugs.  I write for Pam's House Blend, a popular LGBT blog (though I'm hetero) and have made the civil rights comparison many times.

I KNOW that you are an incredible supporter for the LGBT community, but you seem to feel the need to state your heterosexuality when you publicly speak out on these rights.

I ask you, because I feel you will give me a legitimate response, after having thought about it, and not just a knee-jerk defensive response.  I find it interesting that many heterosexuals, when standing up for LGBT rights feel the need to proclaim their hetero status, as if it is germane to the conversation.

I'm asking today, since we have one day left of the civility experiment and I know folks are going to get defensive on your behalf, but really, is your heterosexuality such an important factor, when you are standing up for our rights, that you have to mention it to people?

Is it because you think it is helpful to have people realize that you are a heterosexual ally and that because you are straight that it means more, is it because you fear being confused for a homosexual man, or do you just not realize that you do it?

Just a question, and not an attempt to derail.

As for the topic at hand, I think everyone should be able to take what they want, and bear the consequences.  I do think it is closely tied to the Gay Rights movement, what with Peron and Brownie Mary's lead on the issue which you have written about before, but I'm not sure it is the equivalent.  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:05:36 AM CDT

I think it is helpful

for him to periodically state his heterosexuality.  Especially because he's a man.  The gay community doesn't have as many active straight allies, and very few of them are men. Like it or not, I think it gives him a certain amount of cred outside the gay community.  Yeah, we don't need to be reminded that he's straight (once we know) but the casual reader might be intrigued by a gay activist who's actually a straight male. Perhaps Russ can reach straights that I, a gay man, cannot.  it also helps gay youths to see that this isn't some insulated group -- that indeed, straights are allowed, and that they don't have to give up their straight friends.  Someone doesn't have to be gay themselves to support gay rights.  

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:30:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

not being gay himself

Right or wrong, I have to say that the fact that Russ does not actually have the subjective experience of being gay makes it a little offensive to me for his to lead a campaign to equate drug use to gayness.

It reminds me of a former (straight) member of the D.C. Council, who chastized gay Washingtonians (and alienated plenty of us) for not rallying to the cause of smokers rights, which she viewed as analogous to gay rights. Her attempt to equate gay oppression with bans on smoking in bars and restaurants was also a little offensive.

For the record, it also gives me qualms when white gay men try to appropriate the black civil rights movement for their own ends.

---

by: uh_huhh @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:42:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My twin does the same thing

My identical twin is straight and he's a real "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights.

When he speaks out on LGBT issues, he usually begins by stating that he's not gay. It is important for him to make it clear to people that he's speaking as a straight person who does not have direct knowledge of what it is like to be gay.

Then, he will explain that his twin brother and best friend is gay and what it has been like for him to see me be the target of discrimination.

My brother could just as easily state that he knows what it is like to be gay, without making it clear how he gained that knowledge. But, I think his arguments have more credibility when he makes it clear who he is and why he supports LGBT rights.

Also, my brother has experienced "queer by a association" his entire life. People suspect him of being gay because he has an identical twin who is gay. Because of that, I think he is justified in proclaiming his sexual orientation. We have discussed this and my brother says that he resents having to state that he's straight when his sexual orientation is questioned.  

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:47:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's a good question!

I had never thought that someone might think I was fearful of being labeled as gay, as if that would threaten my heterosexuality in any way.

I have identified myself as straight, consciously and conspicuously, so that readers would not attribute my opinions to being formed from first-hand experience as a gay person.  I do the same thing when I write my opinions on parenting and children; I say "(though I'm childless)".

I also do so in case I write something shockingly ignorant of first-person gay experience, or potentially offensive, so I can have the "sorry, what do I know, I'm straight" excuse.

Strangely enough, my urge to always proclaim my identity in a gay crowd comes from my time hanging out in gay bars with my gay friends.  I seem to be attractive to bears, and often I'd find myself chatting up guys about football or whatever, with them buying me drink after drink.  My friend Kelly got really pissed and took me aside and said, "Why are you flirting?!?"  Kelly, I said, I'm not flirting, I'm talking with dudes about football.  "But they're buying you drinks!" he continued.  Yeah, so, I replied, I'm broke.  Guys share pitchers of beer, even in straight bars.  I'm supposed to refuse?  "Yeah, but in straight bars, guys aren't buying you beers because they wanna fuck you.  You're taking advantage of these guys' horniness to get drunk!"  Kelly, I said, that's just karma working the balance sheet of all the drinks I've bought for women who'd never fuck me.  But eventually I matured, gave up alcohol for marijuana, and thought it only fair to put the sex cards on the table so as not to inadvertently lead anyone on.

As for being a straight ally, I don't think that makes anything I write more or less valid or makes my support more or less worthy.  Our orientation shouldn't matter... right?

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:53:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

High-Seeking Individual?

I'm not sold on this point.  Growing up I had no interest in getting high. But I DID have an interest in other boys my age.
I was quite the goody two shoes in High School, not doing drugs, and only on one occasion trying alcohol.  I don't seek out getting high.

That is, until I discovered alcohol,and then made a mess of my life with it. And I'm sorry, AA is wrong, I'm not an alcoholic, I don't go to meetings -- when I quit, I quit.  I didn't need a bunch of other drunks to feel sorry for me, and for all of us sitting around pretending to be helpless with no direction and no hope.  Only once, and it was due to peer pressure, did I ever have any anxiety or desire to drink again. That was 4 years ago.  I just stopped drinking, 5 years ago this August.

Russ, I think you're inventing a characteristic that doesn't really exist -- or is at the very least, inconsistent, possibly irrelevent. I know plenty of people who smoke pot who can take it or leave it.  They don't have a burning desire to get high that's even remotely comparable to my desire for good old fashioned gay sex.  Homosexuality is tied into sexuality, a common characteristic of all humans.  Where's the common, normal characteristic that high-seeking stems from?  We're not all thrill seekers, but most of us are sexual beings. Just about everyone has sexual desire, whether it be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual -- see how you're philosophical comparison is breaking down?

Like I said, I've been sober (from alcohol) for 5 years, and in that time haven't really had an issue. I have occassionally smoked pot, and can easily take it or leave it.  There's no "high seeker" in me. In the past I also went very long periods of time (in one case almost 2 years) without any male to male action and believe me, it WAS an ISSUE! :P

Plus you're shooting yourself in the foot. Your "innate high seeker" theory is easily -- almost perfectly -- shoe-horned into AA's flawed philosophy of the ""disease"" of alcoholism.  You've basically admitted you're an "addict" without using that word.  And that's what most people are likely to see in your post--- an addict in denial. If you read what addicts write about their drug use, it sounds almost exactly like your drug use -- only without the positive spin.  There's nothing that differentiates your safe use, and professed innocent desire to get high from the disease/addiction model ----other than your assertion that you're just fine.  That won't fly with people outside of those that already agree with you.  

But the good thing is you don't need this odd "High Seeking Individual" idea to make your case.  It's a rather simple one.  You're an adult.  Pot, by all research, is safer than alcohol and actually has documented medicinal properties.  Bud Light?  Not so much. Pot is not lethal.  Alcohol is easily toxic. Based solely on danger and health issues, Pot should be legal and alcohol should absolutely NOT be legal. Legalizing and taxing pot would actually destroy the drug trade and destroy it's "gateway drug" associations because you'd be getting it from Walgreens, not that weirdo in the pool hall parking lot.
I would abandon this idea because:
1. Plenty of people smoke pot who aren't "High Seeking Individuals".  They don't have that innate desire, they just do it when it happens to be around.
2. There is no natural impulse that most people have that "high seeking" could be a natural extension or alternative.
3. You don't have a way to differentiate yourself logically from addicts.
4. Doing away with the notion of choice doesn't help, it actually harms you, because it supports drug "addict" philosophy.  It supports "cure" philosophy.  

I'm totally for legalization, and there are definite parallels to LGBT rights, but there are also stark differences that can't be ignored.  

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:09:36 AM CDT

congratulations, but ...

Congratulations on your sobriety.  I have tremendous respect for people who are able to work through struggles with drugs, alcohol, etc. and maintain sobriety.  There are many paths.

That AA didn't work for you doesn't mean its philosophy, approach, tools, etc. are wrong for everyone else.  Describing AA as a place where people feel sorry for one another (as opposed to compassion), and are helpless, directionless, or hopeless, could certainly have been your experience at a particular meeting or meetings.  Every organization has dysfunctional parts, even when the organization is supposed to be all about recovering from dysfunction.  And regrettably some people in recovery can be smug regarding others who have successfully worked through their problem without going to AA.  It is truly unfortunate if that is what you found, especially after repeated visits.  But characterizing all of AA that way is a disservice to the millions of people who have found (and will find) compassion, help, direction, and hope there.  Best of luck to you.

Listen to your fairy Godmother, my dear: you will go to the ball.

---

by: 555catnap @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 18:32:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But didn't you have to smile a little

that he went off on that "AA is wrong" tangent, since he stated so forcefully

I'm not an alcoholic, I don't go to meetings

Um, okay. Thanks for sharing!

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 23:17:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well said, but...

...denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

I get where you're going with it, but I cannot help what AA thinks of me.  I am a person who innately needs marijuana to feel like whole functioning person.

Some people think that's an "addiction".  I disagree.  An addiction, as far as I'm concerned, is a physical compulsion which causes severe bodily distress or death if it is abruptly ceased.  I watched my dad kick speed and alcohol cold turkey, so I get a bit touchy on the faux concept of "marijuana addicts".  Show me the marijuana user blowing sailors, snatching purses, or tearing metal off bridges for recycling to get their next dimebag and I'll show you a marijuana "addict".

Hunter S. Thompson once said "Marijuana is like beer, ice, and grapefruit.  You could live without them, but why would you want to?"  A colleague of mine, Lanny Swerdlow, says, "Cannabis isn't just a medicine; it's a health supplement, something you should take like vitamins or calcium, to fight the effects of the diseases of aging.

I could live without marijuana.  I could welcome back the insomnia, the racing thoughts, the never-ending internal soundtrack of vicious self-criticism that existed before I had marijuana.  Maybe then someone would offer to "cure" me with SSRIs that trash my liver, threaten suicidal ideation, eliminate sexual desire, and cost an arm and a leg.  Maybe someone else would offer ten years of therapy at $125 per fifty minutes to "cure" me.

Or I could just keep smoking pot, living a very productive and successful life, and maintain my "denial".

But you are right in one extent - that people on the "outside" will never understand any of this.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:05:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dan Savage crackhead.

I have known quite a few crackheads in my last 20 years.  I would vote Savage as the number two person on television to probably be a crackhead.

---

by: less is more @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 21:05:55 PM CDT

But a cute crackhead

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 21:10:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

drugs = escape

Being gay is what I am, the few drugs I've partaken in, were usually because posing as straight was wearing on me.
possibly sex addiction would compare to drug use, but sex addicts can just as easily be straight.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 23:40:20 PM CDT

Our bodies are designed to absorb drugs & react to their properties

One of the reasons it's difficult for us to accept RadRuss' premise--that humans have an innate desire to alter their consciousness--is that there's such an incredibly diverse range of drugs-of-choice. (Which gives us so many different ways to say, "Not me! I don't do that.") The majority of posts have focused on alcohol, marijuana and heroin. That barely begins to make a dent in the possibilities.

Among my queer friends is a real straight-arrow type. Adores microbrews but never drinks more than one glass a day. Has gotten high (on pot and/or mushrooms) no more than 3 times his entire life. But! As he not-always-readily admits, he cannot function without caffeine.

I'm a bit out-of-step with pop culture and other phenomena because of my refusal to watch broadcast television. Yeah I own a TV but only for watching DVDs. However when I grew up there was nearly always a TV on, somewhere in the house. And that cathode-ray-tube pulls you in!

No, I'm not making a case for TV as a drug itself. Though it could be an interesting tangent. (I am prone to tangential thinking.) At the grocery store the other day, I was looking at a car's numerous clever bumper stickers. I don't drive--I'm disabled, and am not quite capable of driving safely--only one more way I feel as if I'm a heretic in this culture. One read, "Television is Drugs." As I scanned this and other stickers, the driver hopped in, unnoticed by me for a brief period. But I caught his attention before he pulled off. We agreed the wording of his bumper sticker was much more evocative and powerful than if it had merely said, "Television is a drug."

Try this experiment sometime. If you're like me, you'll have to make a special effort to sit in front of the tube for awhile. Keep a stopwatch or comparable chronograph handy. Pay attention to everything happening on the TV, especially the advertisements. First time any drug (alcohol, cigarettes, nicotine 'replacement' products, caffeine, Tylenol, Nyquil, Lipitor, Prozac, Premarin, etc.--or, the illegal ones) is either mentioned or displayed on-screen, start your watch. Next time you get a "hit", stop the watch.

Reset as needed, and keep the cycle going. Over time you'll gain more skill: to notice subtler inclusions of drugs, in this medium in which most of us immerse ourselves for several hours a day. The number of seconds will continue to diminish. Sometimes it'll happen more quickly than your fingers can react.

A remarkable thing about these drugs--and the number is astonishingly high, once you include both the prescription and the illegal varieties--is that our brains have receptors whose specific purpose is to react to them! We are, literally, hard-wired to be receivers of the effects of mind-altering substances.

To gain deeper understanding--and learn of other ways in which humans are built to be drug-seeking biological machines--Google "entheogen" and follow some links. Consider reading the works of experts on the subject. Andrew T. Weil M.D.'s From Chocolate to Morphine is a good start. Other possibilities are Terence McKenna or Alexander Shulgin, though for the uninitiated they might seem uncomfortably close to being Timothy Leary types (and in the latter case, a general knowledge of chemistry will help).

---

by: cwm @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 01:35:13 AM CDT

I may be nitpicking here

and it's possible we're both saying the same thing, just in different ways, but....

Our bodies evolved to create our own supply of "drugs" - mind-altering substances - and some outside chemicals mimic, enhance, or mask the effects of the drugs we produce naturally. Adrenaline is a chemical that changes your mental and physiological state. Testosterone, progesterone, serotonin, even insulin, all have an effect on mental state. We've evolved to be inherently mind-altering.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:42:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]