Some admittedly controversial GURPS questions.

[David Johnston2]

The main issue outside the realm of the rules as written are the long term health consequences of addiction. Of course those are highly variable depending on whether the addict is just going for maintenance doses or actually trying to enjoy highs, and individual physiological quirks.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The main issue outside the realm of the rules as written are the long term health consequences of addiction. Of course those are highly variable depending on whether the addict is just going for maintenance doses or actually trying to enjoy highs, and individual physiological quirks.

It also is highly dependent on the specific substance. Alchohol causes liver damage, some designer hallucinogens can cause permanent physical brain damage, most stimulants lead to heart disease, anything smoked can cause cancer.

[Titanium man]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Okay, I am a little disturbed by this. Gaming is a hobby. Therefore it must also be fun for us hobbyists. Why don't they want the kids to see gaming as a fun hobby?

My cousin is a woman who has a pygmalion complex the size of a nebula. She tends to see herself as someone whose role in life is to mold and shape everyone around her into (in her opinion) "better people".

In order to achieve her manifest destiny she needs to disempower people around her. She sees gaming as empowering and therefore an obstacle to her 'improving" people.

She's been against it for a while, not due to that satannic BS but for "psychological" reasons.


Now she's willing to use it as a tool, but wants her minions to not be people who like it or see it has a hobby.

At best my dear cousin is a self righteous, self agrandizing meddler with a streak of pompuosity bigger than the amazon river . I hope she gets it knocked out of her soon because at worst I think she could be more like Sophia Lamb. (Bioshock 2 refference.)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Titanium man

My cousin is a woman who has a pygmalion complex the size of a nebula. She tends to see herself as someone whose role in life is to mold and shape everyone around her into (in her opinion) "better people".

So the whole puritan work ethic that "good" people don't waste time with hobbies, create or enjoy art, or do anything to relax? All your time that you spend not working or sleeping you should be volunteering with the homeless or something? Idle hands are the devil's playground?

[Titanium man]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

So the whole puritan work ethic that "good" people don't waste time with hobbies, create or enjoy art, or do anything to relax? All your time that you spend not working or sleeping you should be volunteering with the homeless or something? Idle hands are the devil's playground?

Not so much a work ethic as more of a sort of idea that she is better suited to determine what people should do than they are. Hobbies are ok as long as they don't involve empowerment. At least I think that's her trip.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It also is highly dependent on the specific substance. Alchohol causes liver damage, some designer hallucinogens can cause permanent physical brain damage, most stimulants lead to heart disease, anything smoked can cause cancer.

Not quite. Long term studies have shown that smoking marijuana does not increase one's chance of lung cancer. Some guess that some anti-inflamatory agent might just cancel out the irritation leaving a zero increase/decrease risk.

And the real difference between recreational use and addiction is not how much is used, but how badly it effects the user's life.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Titanium man

Not so much a work ethic as more of a sort of idea that she is better suited to determine what people should do than they are. Hobbies are ok as long as they don't involve empowerment. At least I think that's her trip.

Or to quote a phrase used too much by WOW villians, "What hubris!"

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Not quite. Long term studies have shown that smoking marijuana does not increase one's chance of lung cancer. Some guess that some anti-inflamatory agent might just cancel out the irritation leaving a zero increase/decrease risk.

There's also studies that show that there is an increased risk. Part of the problem is that it's actually pretty hard to do this research in most countries because of the prohibition. Meanwhile inhaling smoke in general seems to be carcinogenic, so even if it's randomly not true about pot it still is about tobacco, and probably is about peyote, meth, crack and whatever else.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Not quite. Long term studies have shown that smoking marijuana does not increase one's chance of lung cancer. Some guess that some anti-inflamatory agent might just cancel out the irritation leaving a zero increase/decrease risk.

And the real difference between recreational use and addiction is not how much is used, but how badly it effects the user's life.

I've heard something somewhat contrary, that smoked marijuana carries risks equivalent to or greater than cigarettes. The key difference is that people who habitually smoke weed do so in far smaller quantities than people who smoke tobacco, so on average the risks are less for typical users.

My impression of the impact of these two drugs is that cigarettes have greater long-term health issues, but less immediate effects, while weed is relatively mild for long-term health but has a bigger impact on lifestyle. Of course, part of that includes the stigma and chance of getting arrested for possession, which is a legal/social outcome and has nothing to do with the properties of the drug itself.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

My impression of the impact of these two drugs is that cigarettes have greater long-term health issues, but less immediate effects, while weed is relatively mild for long-term health but has a bigger impact on lifestyle. Of course, part of that includes the stigma and chance of getting arrested for possession, which is a legal/social outcome and has nothing to do with the properties of the drug itself.

And stoner culture, which is also social. Plenty of people seem to be either occasional recreational users or medical users that don't immediately grow dreadlocks, stop wearing shoes, and smell like patuoli oil.