We agree on the heroin, it's bad, bad stuff. but I don't agree that pot is addicting. I smoked it on and off for at least 13 years. Over that time I quit smoking for periods of months (6 months at the longest) and it was never a problem to quit. There are some ppl that can't handle facing the day without the relaxation that pot brings, but I wouldn't say they are addicted...just unable to face the world without something altering their perception (like some do with alcohol).
I hate to break it to some of you folks, but occasional use of heroin is not uncommon at all. The practitioners are primarily white, middle class people in their 20's and 30's. They tend to do it sometimes on weekends for recreation. At least that was the case about 20 years ago when my wife wrote her masters thesis on it. There's data out there about it. There's data out there about almost anything.
Pot is about as "psychologically addictive" as p*rn or soap operas or potato chips. This is a non-issue. Heroin is dangerous. As mentioned above, it's more dangerous because it isn't regulated, so users don't know how much they're using. Many, many ex-users have said cigarettes are harder to get off and stay off, even though the withdrawal is worse from heroin. The point is that our drug policy is entirely hypocritical. It's not a health issue. That is a lie. Not a misunderstanding of the facts, but a blatant lie, propogated by people who stand to profit by our current policy. Alcohol companies have employed people for years, whose purpose is to lobby against the legalization of weed. No one who's paid any attention to this issue can sincerely they oppose legalization as a health issue, unless they are also for banning cigarettes, going back to prohibition of alcohol and, yes, legislating what we can and cannot eat. Anyone who says different is lying. And the fact that people don't die in one overdose episode from unhealthy foods does not mean they don't sometimes die from the foods they choose to eat and it does not mean they don't die from "overdosing" on those foods. And I guarantee you a lot more people die in America from their diet than die from drug overdose.
Batman-- Excellent post. I agree with most of it. Just a few things... I think you misunderstood my post. Pot is psychologically addictive. This is a FAR cry from physical addiction in that the addiction does not occur with all users. Earlier in this thread I said more than once that I think there is no reason that pot should be illegal. There are more people in this country who eat than there are who use heroin. That is where the numbers belie the point. I personally believe that there are about 85% of the populace are "food addicts." By that I mean that they eat for pleasure rather than merely to fuel the body. I'm guilty of this...especially recently. It is my exercise regimen that has kept me to a relatively trim 240 pounds at 6'5".
We're in agreement I think, Ref. I just think it's silly to talk about drugs as a health issue, when we don't do the same with food. I'm vegan. If I were to smoke pot and maintain a vegan diet with necessary vitamin supplements, I'd be healthier than the average food eater. That is, I would be if I didn't drink and smoke. p.s. Jeff, no one in this thread invented the word "schwag." It's been around forever. For myself, I prefer the term "brown frown."
Agreed. As I stated before....and let me clarify since I didnt in my post...As an ex-user, I can unequivically state that pot IS NOT physically OR pyscologically addicting. Period! Ref, you know I respect your opinion and I think you're a helluva poster, but you are just plain wrong in your assertions that it is. Don't believe the studies or the anti-drug hype. I have been there and I know it for a fact.
Ithink I have not done a good job in clarifying my point. Pot is addictive in much the same way alcohol is. The majority of users can remain non-addicted. But there are some whose psyche is such that they become addicted...not physically, but in their mind...hence psychologically addictive. The similarities between pot and alcohol are too substantial in my mind to have one legal and the other not. I've never used pot, but have read a lot on the subject. I really appreciate that statement. Thank you.
I wonder what the process is for legalization. First, FDA approval for a list of legal controlled substances, with age guidelines, dosages, manufacturing specs? There's a lot of bad mandatory sentencing law out there to rescind. There's quite a lot of work to do. Nevertheless, the payoff in dollars and in social capital would be enormous and quickly realized. I don't know any politician that would want to spend his political capital on this issue, though. I don't know how you get it up for a vote. You'd think the president would have to make a statement to end the war to give cover for others to run with the ball. I suppose that would only come out in an election if a serious candidate challenged on the issue and made it a subject of debate. Someone has to stand up and say I'm for decriminalization, and softer penalties on any existing law. You'd think you could make that stand in some districts, as a start.
Refman, the argument over the psychological addiction angle occurs because, having found they couldn't pin a physical addiction on pot (while alcohol is absolutely physically addictive), the anti-drug lobby goes for the next best thing in "psychological" addiction. Anyone who believes they are psychologically addicted to pot is mistaken. Or, better, they throw the term around too loosely. What they really mean to say is they like it, or love it, and would prefer to use it rather than not using it. If someone needs psychological help to break an "addiction" to pot, it's because they are obsessive compulsive or suffer from some other disorder -- not because pot possesses any addictive property at all. It doesn't. It boils down to a craving. Someone saying "I'm just gonna die if I don't smoke a joint" is akin to someone saying "I'm just gonna die if I don't eat some good seafood."
I'll retell a story some of you have heard... Our church does an Angel Tree program...basically we pick an ornament off a tree at church which has the name of a child in it. It lists three gifts for the child, chosen by a parent...the parent is in prison. The gifts are given in the name of the parent..."here..your daddy wanted you to have these for christmas. merry christmas." you get the idea... My business partner and I go to church together and he heads up this effort every year. It means he has to call the family where the child lives and see if there are other children who were left out...and generally ask if there's anything else that's needed. So one year he goes out to visit three girls living with their grandma. Mom is in prison and she was the one who put forward the gift request...we subsequently learn Dad is in prison too. He's got three possession charges and can't get out for roughly forever. The girls are living in a filthy apartment with a grandma who can't get out of bed...there's no furniture...there are no beds...the girls are sleeping on sheets on their bedroom floor that probably hadn't been washed in 6 months. The church buys the girls gifts, and buys all new furniture for their home and clothes for the girls and grandma...stocks their pantry with food... Sometime right before Christmas, the girls get a letter from Dad. Dad claims he's a changed man...He claims he is so excited about the change, because he's become a Christian. They write him back and tell him about my friend and the help our church gave. He writes to my friend/business partner and he goes to visit him in prison. The change is sincere...and he's locked up for an ass long time. On possession charges. Meanwhile, the girls have no father... Fortunately, the girls basically "live" with my business partner and his family...he has lots of kids already, so he's just made room. I see them every Sunday at church and they're doing well. They're bright kids...but they need their dad. Dad could have used rehab a LONG time ago...and that would prevent the situation as it is right now...and honestly, it could be a lot worse had mom not sent in that Angel Tree request... But the point is (yes, there is a point!) these sentences don't just affect the sentenced...they affect families and the development of children. Obviously, that doesn't mean you don't lock up murderers...or robbers...or rapists...but these are possessory offenses. I just don't understand these really LONG sentences.
Word, Max. If this were truly a health issue and they wanted to be tough on drugs, the penalty for possession would be mandatory rehab. It's like the Mitch Hedberg quote from my old signature: "Alcoholism is a disease but it is the only disease you can get yelled at for having."
MadMax, that was one hell of a sweet story. It's great that there are people like your business partner. And what an example of the idiocy of our drug laws. Think of those kids multiplied into the millions and the problem our country has put upon itself by electing a whole array hypocrites from both parties.
I totally agree, Max. I also think this is true when Dad has not seen the light so clearly. Many drug addicts can work most of the time and barring abuse it is better to keep the family together. Unfortunatley a crack addict in my wife's extended family fits that bill. I've known him since the age of two or three. A nice, yet addicted kid. Fortunately he lives is South Texas where they are much more lenient. In Harris County he would have been locked up for a very long time with his continual dirty urine while on probation for a stupid robbery (his only crime) he did a couple of years ago while in a drug haze.
No one is stopping people from getting rehab. I am pretty sure there are even free programs out there (Addicts Anon or something like that). Nobody goes to prison "forever" for one possession conviction. Maybe he should have thought about his kids before getting thrown in the pokey three times, or one time for that matter. Why does the sentence matter when no one is forcing people to break the law in the first place. Is smoking mar1juana so important that it is worth going to prison for? If it is, how can it not be considered addictive?
You seem to be all for the 'Rule of Law,' but that philosphy is more undermined by punishments out of proportion to the crime than by lawbreakers themselves. The legitmacy of the 'Rule of Law' depends not the existence of ANY laws, but on the existence of just laws.
That is asinine. There are scores of alcoholics who never get help because nobody FORCES them to. If the penalty for drug possession was rehab it would FORCE people to face their problem. All you get for throwing them in the pokey (as you put it) is a pissed off, serially buggered addict. Good job.
And you, Max and Hayes seem more like Libertarians than Republicans here. Just as I seem more like a Green. Which I am more like. Did you know you were more like a Libertarian?
