Education is fine and good and all but who here in jr. high/high school even paid attention to the lessons you heard in class? Even I tried pot and I was what you would have considered a "good" kid!

I'm not sure legalizing is all that great idea either but I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer to the problem.

Pot can be addictive. Any drug can be addictive from asprin to heroin. Every person differs when it comes to abuse of a substance.

I also think that if you legalize pot, I figure you got to legalize it all.

That's just my 2 cents

Gambeling can be addictive, lobster can be addictive, TV can be addictive. There's no definitive research, but most evidence points to 2 kinds of addiction, a true chemical dependancy to the substance or a "psychological addiction" (which is actually probably also a chemical dependancy to hormones like seratonin or adreneline, but the difference is it's internally driven chemistry rather than externally introduced chemistry).

Basically, something that creates a true chemical dependancy, MOST people will get addicted to. Some people won't as their individual body chemistry differs, but they are the exception. Things like heroine and cocaine seem to fall into this category.

Contrast that with a psychological dependancy. This is most easily seen with something like gambling. Clearly, since the addict isn't ingesting anything, it more likely has to do with a dependancy on something that originates internally. It's likely that most people wouldn't be susceptible to this kind of addiction, only those with a specific body chemistry. Or, it's also possible that everyone is susceptible to this kind of dependancy, if they happen to run across the one thing that triggers the right levels of whatever hormones to cause the addiction. Who knows.

Now, most evidence seems to point to marijuana falling into the second category. Most people do not form a chemical dependancy on the substance (thc) itself, but rather the small percentage of users that are addicts become addicted to the secondary physiological response such as increase seretonin levels. No different than people with abnormal addictions to TV, gambling, or food.

Where am I going with this? I don't know. Other than, there's a certain ammount of commone sense and observational science that can be applied to determine which drugs are more of a concern than others.

The bottom line is, the war on drugs is a complete failure. Total prohibition is equally as dangerous and ineffective as total anarchy. To me, it's clear that the direction we should be moving is towards managing consumption in a constructive way rather than throwing everything we have into fighting a losing battle.

With hallucinagens, and even with pot, I would say that it isn't the substance that is addicting, but rather the experience. If you don't have a good experience, you aren't going to continue using. If you do have a pleasurable experience, you may continue but not because there is a chemical compelling you to.

I've known plenty of people that tried pot, didn't like it, and didn't do it anymore. There is no physical withdrawal to stopping. Cigarettes, however... Or alcohol, heroin, etc. I know people that knew they were killing themselves with alcohol, but just couldn't stop. They weren't enjoying themselves any more and yet they continued.

I know I'm just restating what others have said more elequently but it is an important difference in the types of addiction and worth repeating, IMO.

I assume, the clinic that serves up the doojee will also serve up a heaping loving cup of aid and comfort. I am talking -- a safe environment that could get the junky off the drugs and back into our neighborhoods - a healthy, hard working, sociopath.

I say, let's make the P-funk legal. Jimmy the flea powder to the masses and see what stir's up, dig? Caballo is what caballo does.

Not for me though. Heaven's no. I could never handle something as intense as heroin. I would crumble and loose all my basic motor skills. I'd probably do something stupid like run out into traffic, or take up coin collecting.

I leave you with this erroneous quote:

"Who lives longer? the man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or a man who lives on roast beef, water and potatoes 'till 95? One passes his 24 months in eternity. All the years of the beefeater are lived only in time"
Aldous Huxley

I've been thinking about this more and more and the issue of personal responsibility.

I am responsible in my finances and I am investing for retirement. However, I am forced to pay into a social security system that will probably pay me (assuming I get anything) around 1% interest. I am forced to pay into this system because it is basically a government endorsed and enforced pyramid scheme, so i have to pay in so that others who have paid in before get theirs.

What is the parallel?

Why should i be forced to pay into a broken system because others have perhaps not had the foresight or even the ability to save for old age? Should I not be permitted to opt out - as members of the House and Senate are, I believe - taking my chances and getting nothing out of the system?

I am not responsible for the poor financial decisions of those who have come before me in not saving. I am not responsible for the process that got SS started in the first place.

The government has stolen my money for something that was deemed best for society. If any private company ran their retirement plan like this, the CEO and every board member would be in prison, or at least on trial.

Keeping drugs illegal is deemed as best for society. While I am certain that there are those that can (and do) use these illegal substances in a responsible manner, there are tose who will simply have no control.

So, are we responsible as a society for those who would make poor decisions simply because others would not? I don't know the answer. But there are a hell of a lot of government programs out there designed to limit or even take away personal responsibility. The examples are limitless. Am I responsible for woman who has four children by four different men and gets welfare? Well, it has been deemed as being best for society for the rest of us to pay for her irresponsible behavior. Why should we legislate to protect her from her bad decisions?

If we truly want to go the route of libertarian self reliance and responsibility, I can see the benefits for those that are responsible. I see perhaps some societal disaster because of those that are not. This would certainly shrink the size and scope of government, and that's fine with me. But if we're going to legalize drugs because it's an issue of personal responsibility, then let's take out all the government laws, rules, and regulations that protect people from themselves.

Well stated.....Hear, Hear!

But on the plus side, you have the highest number of strip clubs per capita of any city in the US!

And no one has mentioned THE most addictive and destructive substance known to man: Pixie Stix (or is it Sephora?).

Ah, but I disagree that it's best for society. In my opinion and observation, as I've stated over and over again, keeping it illegal has created far more problems than it ever prevented or solved. So muddying the waters with, "Well, if you are okay with SS being used for the benefit of society, why not drug laws," doesn't quite work.

Ok.