Don't laugh. It may not be illegal (only recently though) ... but I tells ya, the taboo on boy/boy sex is part of what makes it more attractive to me than the more mundane (but equally fun) straight variety.











Oh, were we talking about pot? Heheh, let's get high sometime and I'll tell you what I really think about gay sex!

That statement is not necessarily true (as an absolute statement). Every person reacts differently to a given substance.

For example, when we took foster/adoption training many years ago, we were talking about drug babies. They said that you could have set of twins developing in the body of a woman taking meth. When they are born, it is possible (and it happens) where one baby is clean, with no problems, and the other has life-long battles with the after-effects.

I'm late to the game here, and a lot of good things have aready beend said, but I wanted to address the "enjoyment" dividing line a bit more with some personal diachotomies;

I used to enjoy alcohol. I started using it as medication and, while still enjoying it it became more need than enjoyment. At the end, I wasn't even enjoying it, but it was all about need.

I have taken post surgery pain meds as prescribed and, while they were necessary for pain management, they were also really sort of enjoyable. I certainly laughed lot while on Vicodine.

I have never understood why alcohol is legal and pot is not. Or for that matter why some for of opiates are given to you by your doctor and others are sold on the street for large amounts of cash.

Oh, and for those who claim that pot is not addicting, you are wrong. I know plenty of people who were addicted to pot. The physical effects of addiction my be different than those of alcohol or heroin (especially the withdrawal) but the addiction still exists.

One of the many reasons why I can't stand my old hometown. ;)

But, I don't blame the gambling at all. Some people can handle it and set limits without attitude issues. And others...... *shudder*

Whenever I used to go back and visit my parents, my mom loved to play bingo, so I'd go with her. In between sessions, she liked to play nickel machines. But, she always limited herself, and wasn't drawn into the whole, "I won $10! I bet I can win more! I feel lucky today! And look how big those jackpots are!" mind trap.

This is true, but there is a difference between direct addiction (i.e., a physical addiction to a particular substance) and an indirect addiction (addiction to a secondary effect of the substance or action, not the substance itself). Marijuana addiction falls more in line with the latter, which would also include things like gambling addiction or sex addiction or other behavioral addictions. It's not the act itself, but the feelings associated with it and/or the production of certain brain chemistry.

That's not to diminish the seriousness of any of those addictions. Addiction is addiction and can be devastating no matter what. And in some ways, the latter is MORE problematic since it's less likely to be tied to a particular substance or act but rather be indicative of an addiction-prone person. If what you're addicted to is the endorphine rush you get from gambling, then breaking the addiction isn't as simple as "stop gambling" because you may just find something equally destructive to replace that with.

But while academic distinctions on the exact nature of an addiction don't particularly console an individual and those they affect, when you're talking about larger effects and policy-making, it does matter. It matters that as a populace, we are significantly more likely to become addicted to heroin, cocaine, alcohol, etc. than marijuana. When you're talking about determining societal risk, as well as planning resources for how to address addiction problems, it's important to understand those differences and account for them. It's important to know that you're going to need a lot more methadone clinics than marijuana addiction counselors.

I support unfettered access by adults to whatever drugs they want for any purpose they want. If an adult wants to ignore his family and spend weeks at a time coked out in his basement. I'm ok with that.

If in the process of doing so, he puts his children at risk of physical danger. Then that should be punished, not the drug taking. If he puts others at risk by driving impaired (for whatever reason) then that behavior should be punished, not the drug taking.

I include in this all of the illegal drugs as well as all of the prescription drugs.

Yes, drugs will be the mechanism by which people do bad things to themselves and others. But there are manifold ways of doing that anyway.

This was on the radio on my way home from work. I found the timing (while coincidental) amusing. Probably NSFW

I've started tping in this thread a few times over the last day or so and have always ended up stopping.

I find myself becoming more and more libertarian in my thinking. I just hate the government telling people what they can and can not do. I also hate the government telling organizations what they can and can not do. I have oft fallen into the trap of government intervention as acceptable in cases that I think are OK or moral or whatever.

I think the government nanny state is a product of power hungry politicians, people who expect life to be fair, and people who won't take responsibility for their own actions. The concept of victimless crime i find more and more reprehensible.

I will never visit a hooker, but why outlaw it? I won't do drugs, but shouldn't an adult have that option? I doubt I'll be selling a kidney any time soon, but it's my freakin' kidney and I should be allowed to do with it as I please.

Leave people to make choices even if they are potentially harmful. Government can intervene if if it becomes harmful to others. An adults need to take the responsibility and/or consequences for their actions without whining that the government isn't providing enough for them.

Ack! I can't decide how much to submit to quotes!!!!!

Screw it.