Weed and other hobbies the "DIscovery" crew might/should have?

[mdtauk]

Are we going to evolve past having stress and needing to relax? There's nothing wrong with weed, we just have a society that doesn't accept it because of propaganda. Studies have shown it to be fairly beneficial. The only downside is that in certain places you can be arrested for having it.

The only reason it's a Schedule 1 drug, which means the US government thinks it's more dangerous than cocaine and has no medical benefits, is because it gave them an excuse to arrest hippies and African Americans. So what's more likely to evolve past, a puritanical attitude about a harmless plant or our desire to unwind after work?

The premise with Star Trek's future, is that humanity does not need artificial stimulus to be happy and enjoy themselves. I am not saying Marujuana is good or bad, or that it needs to be viewed as one or the other. My point was if they are going to tackle drugs as an issue, to show it being used safely to enhance the crewman's time on board the ship, but also show how it can become a problem as someone becomes dependant on it.

It would be betraying the ideals of the show, or the progress of humanity as it is portrayed, to suggest drug taking is a positive, or something to aspire to. In the same way that alcohol was replaced with something less harmful (Synthahol).

 

[fireproof78]

What side effects? It's non-addictive and is no longer affecting you after a few hours.

The elevated risks of cardiac, pulmonary disease and cancer? WHO's 2014 report that it can exacerbate schizophrenia symptoms and damage to the bronchi and trachea, as well as other behavioral health impacts, which is where I primary see problems.

So, with due respect, I will disagree that it is not harmful. I don't think it is any less harmful than alcohol, and I certainly don't agree with the government's current scheduling of it, and people can use it if they want to, like they can use alcohol or cigarettes.

There was a no smoking sign on the bridge simulator and in the transporter toom in Wrath of Khan

So clearly people still smoked something

(I know they were not suppose to be there, Gene asked them to be removed but a couple snuck in)

Meyer put it in there, and GR was not really in position to do more than object.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The premise with Star Trek's future, is that humanity does not need artificial stimulus to be happy and enjoy themselves.

**cough**holodecks**cough**

 

[fireproof78]

**cough**holodecks**cough**

Nothing to see here.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nothing to see here.

Try saying "Computer begin Holoprogram Paris 042". I hear its a good one.

 

[Bones]

It seems to me that a highly advanced and intelligent future society, having moved far beyond all of our current primitive hangups and strictures, and having endless hours of leisure time due to everything being automated and computer-controlled, would develop recreation in all forms to a highly advanced and sophisticated art. And this would include imaginative ways of directly and selectively stimulating the brain to pure ecstasy and wonderfully bizarre sensory experiences and altered states of consciousness while avoiding the harmful side effects of today's crude substances.

...but that's the stuff of literary science fiction. Heaven forbid Star Trek ever depict a human society that's truly different from us.

Kor

Didn't we see the result of direct brain stimulation in TNG's The Game?

You could in theory have people hook themselves up to a machine, turn it on and replicate the experience of doing even harder drugs like coccaine without having ever touching the real stuff.

Jason

The primary effect of stimulating neurotransmitters can lead to side effects. So even if you purified a drug down to it's active chemical(s), or came up with a machine that specific neurotransmitters you'd still be stuck with side effects. Stimulating the dopamine and opioid receptors would lead to addiction, etc. It's just how our brains are wired.

Perhaps they'll have synthweed, all the relaxing and none of the side effects

Same comment as Jayson 1. I'd have trouble with suspension of disbelief on this.

 

[Tuskin38]

Meyer put it in there, and GR was not really in position to do more than object.

They were removed though, but only after those scenes were shot.

They were also meant to be seen in shots where they set was used as the normal bridge.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Didn't we see the result of direct brain stimulation in TNG's The Game?

GAH!

Just nobody mention "The Game," OK?

 

[Greg Cox]

It would be betraying the ideals of the show, or the progress of humanity as it is portrayed, to suggest drug taking is a positive, or something to aspire to. In the same way that alcohol was replaced with something less harmful (Synthahol).

But wait. People definitely drank alcohol on TOS, and DISCOVERY is set a decade before TOS, right? So are we saying that the Federation went through a period of Prohibition in DISCOVERY's time and then loosened up by the time Kirk's Enterprise came around?

Seriously, nothing on STAR TREK has ever suggested that the Federation is populated by puritans and teetotalers who abstain from all petty vices and pleasures. Hell, even Picard's ship had its own bartender! And I'm pretty sure Quark's place had a liquor license.

And remember this exchange from "Arena":

"Doctor, you are a sensualist."
"You bet your pointed ears I am!"

Again, if Pike can enjoy a martini (in what I believe was the very first STAR TREK scene ever shot), around the same time that DISCOVERY is set, it's illogical to assume that marijuana is somehow beyond the pale.

 

[fireproof78]

Didn't we see the result of direct brain stimulation in TNG's The Game?



The primary effect of stimulating neurotransmitters can lead to side effects. So even if you purified a drug down to it's active chemical(s), or came up with a machine that specific neurotransmitters you'd still be stuck with side effects. Stimulating the dopamine and opioid receptors would lead to addiction, etc. It's just how our brains are wired.


Same comment as Jayson 1. I'd have trouble with suspension of disbelief on this.

Oh, it would ruin my suspension of disbelief as well. I'm just seeing that as a workaround, like synthahol was supposed to be.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm now imagining an alternate version of "By Any Other Name" where Scotty introduces the unsuspecting alien to weed instead of booze.

And, honestly, it probably depends on the planet. Do we really think that the Argellians, who were famed for their "hedonistic" culture, didn't have other indulgences besides booze and belly-dancing?

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

There was a no smoking sign on the bridge simulator and in the transporter toom in Wrath of Khan

Maybe the sign was for the (potentially exploding) consoles. "No smoking, terminal J34. That's how we lost Ensign Beaton last week."

 

[mdtauk]

**cough**holodecks**cough**

I think both Holo addiction, and Holodeck malfunctions show both the good and useful side of them, and the problems with dependency on it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think both Holo addiction, and Holodeck malfunctions show both the good and useful side of them, and the problems with dependency on it.

I would take that statement to contradict what you said here:

The premise with Star Trek's future, is that humanity does not need artificial stimulus to be happy and enjoy themselves.

 

[Greg Cox]

Here's a question: would have Lt. Barclay benefited from some recreational weed now and then, or would he have abused it?

And did Doctor Phlox dispense medicinal marijuana along with his other exotic remedies?

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'd love to see a character with tattoos. Not ones with deep spiritual or religious meaning, just some ink someone got because they thought it looked cool.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'd love to see a character with tattoos. Not ones with deep spiritual or religious meaning, just some ink someone got because they thought it looked cool.

Kirk: Check it out. It says "Bad Ass" in Vulcan
Spock: Actually it says "Plomeek Farts"

 

[Greg Cox]

You know, the way things are going in the real world, you can make a case that NOT showing weed as being equivalent to wine or coffee in the future will make DISCOVERY seemed quaintly old-fashioned or retro.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/dining/wine-marijuana-cannabis-industry.html?_r=0

 

[Awesome Possum]

The elevated risks of cardiac, pulmonary disease and cancer? WHO's 2014 report that it can exacerbate schizophrenia symptoms and damage to the bronchi and trachea, as well as other behavioral health impacts, which is where I primary see problems.

Actually studies have shown it to help with some forms of cancer.

I agree that people with schizophrenia probably shouldn't use it, but the majority of the population doesn't have it and I see that as a very poor argument to use against it. Action films can trigger PTSD in certain people, but we'd wouldn't say action films were bad for people. The damage to lthe ungs and heart are due to the smoke, not the drug itself. There seems to be absolutely no risk when using vaporizers and edibles, which are increasingly popular. Vaporizers are actually a superior way to take it.

 

[fireproof78]

Actually studies have shown it to help with some forms of cancer.

I agree that people with schizophrenia probably shouldn't use it, but the majority of the population doesn't have it and I see that as a very poor argument to use against it. Action films can trigger PTSD in certain people, but we'd wouldn't say action films were bad for people. The damage to lthe ungs and heart are due to the smoke, not the drug itself. There seems to be absolutely no risk when using vaporizers and edibles, which are increasingly popular. Vaporizers are actually a superior way to take it.

Save for the pneumonia risk, but other than that I agree.
But, we were not discussing medicinal use, which I completely am supportive off, as well as decriminalization (again, Washington State is where I work). Again, regulation like alcohol would be preferred.

But, the overall implication was the crew kicking back and smoking, which is what I disagreed with. Medicinal uses I do support.

Although, to your point, some would argue that action films are bad for you