About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
American Euphoria
by
Richard Wilmot Ph.D.
dr.docwilmot@gmail.com
PREFACE
Even though most psychoactive drugs in America are illegal, there are so many drug problems in this country that experts have termed drug abuse an epidemic. Yet our knowledge of drugs and drug use and abuse is inadequate. How much is too much? What does “getting high,” mean to the drug user? Are you an addict or a label?
The purpose of writing this book is to answer questions such as these. The ideas and analysis presented here views “addiction” from a new and different perspective. It is a holistic approach to drug/alcohol use and abuse that will help to question current drug treatment and drug policy authority.
Do the current perspectives on alcohol and drug abuse need to be questioned? After spending more than twenty years as a drug abuse counselor, researcher and educator, I believe they do. It is time for reform. It’s time for a change in thinking about euphoric drugs in general. It’s time for critical thinking about drug issues.
My passion for drug studies grew out of my own experience with a variety of drugs, with the drug subculture while in college and later working in the “culture of recovery”. After having worked for the Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto, Canada, I received a scholarship to complete a specialized graduate degree (Ph.D.) in Drug Studies at the University of California at San Diego and spent years in the recovery field from doing research, drug counseling clients on Skid row as well as those in the film industry, editing the Journal of Drug Issues, lecturing at the Drug Policy Foundation in Washington D.C., and teaching courses in Drug Studies.
This book focuses on the divisions between the “recovery culture” and the “drug culture”. Simply put, members of the drug culture have an acceptance of drug use while the recovery culture has an abstinence only approach. They are exclusive subcultures with little communication or acceptance of each other… although the culture of recovery is considerably more politically powerful. When one enters treatment, one must become an active, participating member in the recovery culture or risk becoming a treatment failure. One must drop all ties and interests in the drug culture and become committed only to the culture of recovery. Recovery, from the standpoint of the “culture of recovery” must be one of “higher power” conversion.
Acknowledging that “addicts” could benefit from some of their drug experiences or part of their drug culture experience is unthinkable from the perspective of orthodox recovery. From the position of rehabilitation, all drug use is bad and any use is unacceptable. The people, places, and things that are associated with the drug culture must be disavowed. They are “triggers” to further drug use. Everything about the drug subculture is anathema from tattoos to clothing styles.
Yet over my years in the fields of drug studies and treatment, I realized that much of what treatment had to say about “addiction” and the “addicts” themselves was based on stereotypes, stigmatization, ignorance, arrogance, and outright bigotry. Perhaps this is why eight out of every ten people entering recovery go back to using drugs.
Historically there are a number of well-adjusted persons who made outstanding contributions to society, and took euphoric drugs. I have witnessed the same: people doing things that the recovery culture claimed were not possible for someone who regularly used drugs. These people would have been labeled “addicts” had they been noticed or caught. They were not “victims” of drugs; they had their use under control even though some used daily e.g. Pope Leo XIII. This history of controlled drug use led me to wonder about the differences between those whose drug use was non-problematic and those who abused.
Traditional thinking is that the difference is physiological. Addicts are different biologically. They are allergic to alcohol or another drug; they have a “genetic predisposition” to abuse; they have “addictive personalities”. The scientific evidence for each of these perspectives is in dispute. Essentially there are those who understand “addiction” to be a controllable behavior and there are those who believe addiction is a disease. Yet the “treatment” for the “disease” of addiction” focuses on “character defects” and surrender to a “Higher Power” i.e. healing by faith.
Rather, the most recent thinking is that “getting high: or “altering consciousness” is a universal biological drive arising out of the innate structure of the human brain. In other words, we are all “hard wired” to get “high”.
Viewing intoxication as a biological inevitability gives us a better understanding of how drug use differs from drug abuse. Such use is not necessarily immoral or pathological but natural. Much like sex, drug use for humans is a natural drive. Everyone has a need to alter their consciousness and they will do so even at their own peril… from sky diving to smoking “crack” cocaine. The challenge for society is to address this biologically based need to “alter consciousness” in safe, non-abusive ways that will provide people with the “peak experiences” they universally crave. Furthermore, there is a non-abusive code for “getting high” that can be learned so that people who drink or take other drugs do not end-up embarrassed , sick, dependent or dead.
To paraphrase this book: the ways in which we talk about drugs both to ourselves and to others perpetuates many of the problems with drugs. The content of what we have to say about drugs is a reflection of our puritan culture and our personal history.
The answer to our current drug abuse dilemma is to: “just say know” to drugs. This book intends to further that process. The next major civil rights issue to be addressed in America will be the decriminalization of drug use.
popiol:
You said:
Wow. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one thinking fourth dimensionally in this area. (When I mention such ideas to my fellow workers, here, I mostly get blank stares.)
David
popiol:
I have yet to relocate the particular FDM that had the dynamically adjusted non-rectangular grid. It was a meteorological model, and, if I remember correctly, was being adopted by the Army, and/or other branches of the U.S. military, for that purpose. (The dynamic grids especially helped in efficiently and more accurately handling weather fronts and even hurricanes.)
I cannot remember the website of meteorological models I visited long ago that's where I first learned about it. Unfortunately, I apparently didn't save any papers about it on my hard-drive at work (that's how I relocated the info about Mike Neamtu).
Unfortunately, I probably have a hardcopy in my filing cabinet somewhere, and I just haven't had the spare time at work to look through it.
I will post more info here, when I find something.
Sorry.
David
popiol:
Yes, we "have to" choose something. That's why, if one is going to try and choose some basis set of functions that will, hopefully, be applicable over as wide a field as reasonably possible, one should choose a basis set that is as flexible as possible, at a reasonable "cost" (computational and otherwise).
Now, I understand your predilection for polynomials: They are simple, and they are one of the first approximation methods we learn. Piecewise polynomial approximations, with well defined continuity properties are very helpful in a wide variety of applications.
Non-Uniform B-Spines are arguably the best such piecewise polynomial approximations. They are simple to calculate in numerically stable and accurate ways (not all polynomial calculations can claim such), they cover all possible piecewise polynomials up to a given degree (just choose a B-Spline of the given degree), they have maximal continuity, and, due to the non-uniform character, can easily be used to handle cases where one desires points of lower continuity.
OK. So, as the above should suggest, the best piecewise polynomial approach is based upon Non-Uniform B-Splines. They can do a reasonably good job of approximating exponentials (due to their piecewise nature), they can even handle approximating periodic functions (just define their base and control points in a periodic way). However, as Fred rightly pointed out, they don't do very well at all in handling functions with poles (infinities).
This is where Rational polynomial approximations come in. Fortunately, taking Non-Uniform B-Splines and obtaining Rational polynomials is as simple as using a single additional dimension in the control space, and projecting back into the desired space via a perspective like projection (the simplest way is to simply divide by the piecewise polynomial in the extra dimension: In all cases it's as simple as dividing the polynomials you might otherwise use in a Non-Uniform B-Spline approximation, by another one over the same base space). This gives the Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline (NURB) approximation. (You have probably heard of NURBs.)
NURBs can do all that piecewise polynomials can do, plus handling functions with poles (infinities). Besides, as a side benefit, they provide exact fits to important geometric objects like circles, ellipses, and hyperbolas with only a small number of second order segments.
Now, If they can do all this, then why haven't they been more widely used in numeric approximation of partial differential equations? The problem is that up until quite recently, they only existed as one dimensional entities: They could be used for curves and ordinary partial differential equations, but could only be used for multidimensional problems by taking tensor products of these one dimensional entities. This leads to a severe rectangular grid like restriction.
Fortunately, Marian (Mike) Neamtu has apparently solved this problem of generalizing Non-Uniform B-Splines (and, hence, also NURBs) to multiple dimensions. See Mike Neamtu's Website at <http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~neamtu/>. Especially see his latest paper on the subject (in his "Papers" section, linked in the left-hand column): M. Neamtu, Delaunay configurations and multivariate splines: A generalization of a result of B. N. Delaunay, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), 2993-3004 (at <http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~neamtu/papers/newsplines.pdf>).
The only thing this is now awaiting is an efficient implementation. ;-)
David
I'm 18 at the moment. I have been hairy since i was a kid.I remember my boyfriend that i have right now, we use to go to elementary together, I remember he would call me a hairy beast lol it was mean I use to get really sad because i was skinny and pretty and had a nice body but i was fuzzy lol like on my back my tummy my breast and you know. But it didn't really affect my friendships like i told only my close friends like 1 or 2 bt my family all knew. They use to like show me off and shyt lol && it didn't mess up my relationship which is fantastic like he didnt even care.So yeah pretty cool right? but i was hella self conscious i was like man i hate this. Now i don't care cause im pretty lol and i just wax my face it's easy hella fast and i barely started drinking spearmint tea.Let's see what happens.
I stumbled on to my cure accidentally, but cured none the less! I recently went to my doctor and was having a talk about the natural things I am doing for my health. When I mentioned what I was doing and how I USED to come to him each year for antibiotic treatment that lasted several months for chronic sinus infections, and how I didn't have to do that for years now. He amazed me by picking up my chart and, in my presence, looked at it slowly from front to back and when he realized that what I was saying was true he wanted to know what I started taking that had stopped me from coming in annually for my antibiotics. He not only listened, but took notes! I love that man! (Dr. Anthony Remson in Louisville, KY) So I proceeded to tell him that the year I stopped coming in was the first fall after I received my first box of Dr. Ohirra's probiotics for Christmas! I started taking them every day that year and have never stopped. I have not had a sinus infection since and that was eight years ago! The other thing I did was started taking Oil of Oregano a powerful....ANTI-FUNGAL!!! This works for me... there are other anti-fungals that I alternate with....Apple Cider Vinegar, baking soda mixed with water. Recently I bought a Neti Pot and low and behold the mixture contained Sodium Bicarbonate...non other than....Baking Soda a powerful anti-fungal. I still have allergy symptoms so I continue my preventative measures and remain SINUS INFECTION FREE!!!!!
Just added my own blog this month. I need some inspiration. Thx.
Hello my name is Merle Dean Shamblin and I would like to be your new friend. I sure could use somebody to chat with. I am a 48 year old long haul truck driver who currently lives in Weatherford Oklahoma. Dec 8th 1960 I was born in Fairview Oklahoma. Moved to Caddo and Washita counties where I attended school at Colony Hydro and Weatherford. My parents Malvin and Wanda Shamblin were cotton and peanut farmers. Dad died in 99 from lung cancer. Graduated from SWOSU with a business degree. My two sisters are LaDonna Hubert and Malva Burrahm. Dennis is my brother. I have been a truck driver for 15 years and have driven 2 million paid miles. I have received many safe driving awards over the years. I am single and have never been married. I have a wide range of interests and am pretty much an open book. Currently I drive a 2006 Freightliner for a major carrier. I dont go to Canada very often. I dont have a dedicated route so I run the entire lower 48. I enjoy reading cinema music sports travel etc. I am gay and seeking travel buddies.
By focusing on the "exception rule" - that which is different,-we must be careful not to forget the "interdependence factor"- how much that which is different depends on that which is the same.
you are a fucking idiot... just because you couldnt handle having a child (hope you dont) doesnt mean someone else would have to "bin" their child...
MainFragger:
You are correct that "separate" branches of science may well overlap in any given situation. In fact, if science is to "mean" anything real, then all "branches" of science that actually have gotten to the point of being true descriptions of reality (within their respective spheres), must be able to be merged (or will naturally do so) into a single whole, since all are trying to describe aspects of this one universe in which we reside. (Of course, this is not to say that each "branch" will not retain its identity, or even that each will adopt the "same" merged description, since there may still be good reasons to use simpler methods/descriptions that are more suitable to the issues at hand.)
Of course, Fred was trying to point out improper "mergings" that he observed. (This is to say nothing of the missing pieces of the "merged" puzzle we are still dealing with in physics. One of which Fred alluded to.)
David
That is not correct. You don't pick one, because you need both.
The equation is delta-p x delta-x (or delta-E x delta-t) is greater than h/2*pi. In other word, it is a relationship between the uncertainty in the values of two related phenomena. Here's how I explain it in my recent book on 20th-century physics history, Physics: Decade by Decade
I hope this helps, MainFragger.
Fred Bortz
That is not correct. You don't pick one, because you need both.
The equation is delta-p x delta-x (or delta-E x delta-t) is greater than h/2*pi. In other word, it is a relationship between the uncertainty in the values of two related phenomena. Here's how I explain it in my recent book on 20th-century physics history, Physics: Decade by Decade
I hope this helps, MainFragger.
Fred Bortz
P.S.: I'll copy this as a reply to the main message so the shrinking margins don't kill the discussion
Thats what I get for moving too fast, and not stopping to thoroughly explain myself. I assumed as a scientist you would get what I was trying to say. Heisenberg says you can't know the position of a moving object and the trajectory of a moving object at the same time. You have to pick which one you want to look at. (I believe one day computers and sensors will be able to prove Heisenberg wrong, but for now its a sound concept), My point was, in e=mc2 you are measuring a moving object. So its beginning and end mass aren't directly relevant because you can't measure them at the same time as you are looking at the trajectory/velocity of the moving object.
Resveratrol capsules may enable us to absorb the essential amino acids and vital nutrients that would ensure the complete well being of our bodies. Taking this interesting compound as a dietary supplement activates the longevity gene, which means, we live longer. We have long been searching for the fountain of youth, and well, I guess this is one step closer. People spend thousands of dollars for plastic surgery. Compared to the dollars you have to shell out on these treatments, trying out a natural supplement seems to be a safer, healthier and less expensive option. I also think that having dietary supplements containing this antioxidant is very convenient, especially for people who are always on the go and for people who opt not to drink wine.
Resveratrol Plus Rx has a formula that contains a natural balance of the most scientifically effective ingredients which allow you to achieve the most impactful life changing results. For a risk free trial offer with no strings attached, visit our website today!
Go ahead. Give it a shot. You'll be amazed by the results.
http://resveratrolplusrx.com
analogy, because sometimes people seem to forget that you can find them both at the same fruit store. Science is an ongoing process, and we never know when Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or other branches of science are going to overlap. They might be separate branches of science developed for separate reasons, but that necessarily doesn't mean they are completely separate in terms of what can happen in every day life.
MainFragger,
I only had time to give this a quick read, but i can see you are (1) thinking about this seriously; (2) still trapped by your non-relativistic life experiences that leads to a reluctance to accept the relativity of time; (3) mixing apples (relativity) with oranges (quantum mechanics). [Number 3 is an issue when you get to General Relativity, but we are discussing Special Relativity here.]
To help your thinking process along, you need to realize that what you call "the beginning mass minus the final mass" is simply negative of kinetic energy divided by c^2 in relativistic terms. The beginning mass is what physicists call rest mass or m(sub)0. Kinetic energy is mc^2-m(sub)0c^2. In the limit where v is much less than c, this is mv^2/2. There is no "wasted" impetus.
You also are showing a problem in your understanding of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which is a quantum mechanical concept and not relevant to the present discussion. Heisenberg's result doesn't say "mass doesn't matter." It says that the uncertainty in mass/energy times the uncertainty in measurement time must be greater than Planck's constant.
Fred Bortz
Well, I still have to really work on the actual math...but the idea I've sort of been toying with is that since matter shrinks or expands according the speed you are moving, the mass should not really be expressed as a straight mass, but as a change of mass. In other words, the beginning mass minus the final mass. You are measuring the mass of a moving, changing object..as such I think Heisenberg's principle kicks in, and the beginning and end masses don't matter. I think the balancing factor is that as you try to go faster than the speed of light, you need more impetus to get the object to move faster. But you can't actually go faster than the speed of light, so that impetus is dissapated or bleeded, or wasted. However, you can choose to think of that impetus as the speed of light plus the extra impetus. If you multiply that by the change in mass, I think you are basically getting an accurate pictures of the amount of force and mass that are being used to create movement. By dividing that by C (the speed of light) you get your ratio of relativity.
Now here is the kicker. presumable the shrinkage of mass is atomic particles being compressed or pushed closer together. As this happens, the inverse square law starts to kick in, and energy is emitted from the atom as light, photons, or whatever.. Now from what I remember, that energy is like a ring in a tree..its a description of the atom's "age". You can't turn back time, but when the energy is given off, the atoms lighten their energy load, which basically makes them look younger. They are not ACTUALLY younger, they just look it based off of the amount of energy in them. Think of it as an atomic face lift. This is why the atomic clock comes back with a slower time than what has actually passed. My assertion isn't so much that time is realtive, as that matter will age slower or even lose age at certain speeds.
I still have to do the math more thoroughly, but I think if the equation is: (Delta of the Mass)*(speed of light+wasted impetus expressed in terms of speed of light)/(speed of light), it should still be accurate, and should also address your units issue. Keep in mind that in terms of potential impetuse anything short of the actual speed of light does not have the wasted impetus. Only speeds that try to exceed the speed of light creates the wasted impetus. So at 90% of the speed of light impetus, its (Delta Mass*90 percent of the speed of light), but at 110% of the impetus, its (Delta Mass*(speed of light+10% of the speed of light)).
I intend to do the math with the impetus plus light speed idea starting at speed of 10% of light speed all the way up to 2x the light of speed in 10% increments. And the mass varying accordingly.
my daughter is thirteen also and a bedwetter.she wears goodnites with a pair of plastic pants over it every nite to bed.it works well and she does not have to change her sheets.i wash the plastic pants as they are reusable and she throws away the wet goodnites.this ia one option you can try.
Ask yourselves this question then..if marijuana is bad..how come Barack Obama openly admitts that in his time he did COCAINE and MARIJUANA. Does anyone know why? because obviously its not that bad..marijuana can be used for so many reasons besides what people think..its used to relieve anxiety and anger and it stops pain AND theres never been a recorded death to a overdose of marijuana..its safer then Ibuprofen and its ILLEGAL? why is that? Can anyone answer that question with out lies?
Harakiri,
I hate to beat up on Mills because he did a hell of a job without the benefit of the paper Cavity QED (1996) he had to approach this solely from chemistry and the suggestions of Naudts and math of Bourgoin only recently became known in 2005 and 2007. I would love to simply redefine the hydrino but am told it is copyrighted and belongs to Mills. The differences between true fractional states and relativistic fractional states is not just the stability argument or I would simply hold my peace but it also reflects on the very interpretation of the Casimir effect which QED theory says displaces larger (longer wavelength) virtual particles in favor of small (shorter wavelength). The "relativistic interpretation" curves space time proportional to casimir force translating the "apparent" frequency and size of everything (including the virtual particles) existing in that space to an observer outside the cavity. This perspective changes the way one should approach optimizing the effect. I am hopeful that the Casimir effect could be electrically controlled by shorting the plates on a duty factor basis to prevent melt down. I suspect the "hydrides" that BLP claims to have recovered are evidence of the "melt down" when the fast H1 reacts with the catalyst material itself to finally "close" the Casimir "plates". I believe fast H1 and Fast H2 can oscillate between states due to differences in field confinement inside the cavity as long as the difference in acceleration builds velocity and the plates don't melt. The hydrino atom or molecule can't exist in our inertial frame and would need to be delivered in situ within a Casimir cavity. The potential uses may still exist if the application can accept the hydrino in situ.
Its good that reserach is getting published, maybe it is opening of the floodgate, who knows. I think that wild conspiricy theories really damage the cause however. Most reasonablye people would read this and think - ok fair enough until you start talking about lazers and mind control which i'm afraid discredits the rest of the piece rather. Much more likely to be an organic disease, worm or fungus derived problem.
I m too hot boy. i only wants girls for fucking
when love comes than there is very low ratio of self esteem.this is what i think.because love is very sweet feeling so we should not ruined it by our self esteem.we should maintain proper balance.
there is already a cure for diabetes. hemp oil. reseach the rick simpson story.