Medical Marijuana--

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

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

Screw it.

I took care of it for you

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

I agree entirely. Don't be on the roads if you're not fit to drive. Don't come to work impaired. Don't be irresponsible. Yes, people will be irresponsible, but that's the crime, not so much the vehicle of the irresponsibility.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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'm not sure that a physical addiction (alcohol, heroin, etc) is one that is "more likely" to happen than a "mental addiction" (gambling, pot, sex etc). If there was real concern about physical addictions in policy making, alcohol would not be legal.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

I'm quoting in full because I can't mojo you and this post rocks.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

(And I'm wondering why, just as a curiosity, she doesn't feel as strongly about crystal meth, or for that matter, sex addiction, which had devastating effects on a close, close friend of hers. Or, well, maybe she does.)

Who says I don't feel strongly about crystal meth? But I don't hear people on this board calling for its legalization.

My issues with pot are less to do with addiction and more with what I've seen pot use do to people's behavior/personalities (when they're not high). The "Legalize Pot" people would have you think there are no side effects to pot use, but that is not true. It's the side effects, not the addiction, that are the issue. Perhaps the side effects are symptoms of an addiction, but I think it's more than that.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, like I said, you're entitled to be influenced by your personal experiences. But I daresay, as a regular potsmoker, I've known far more potsmokers than you are ever likely to have (and I'm not saying that categorically) ... and I've seen no such "not while high" side effects.


Everyone's mileage may vary.




Oh, and by the way, yes I am calling for the legalization of crystal meth. I don't know that it has any medicinal properties ... and it may be more quickly destructive than legal alcohol or legal tobacco, but it's still, imo, a matter of individual choice if you want to kill yourself with drugs.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

My issues with pot are less to do with addiction and more with what I've seen pot use do to people's behavior/personalities (when they're not high). The "Legalize Pot" people would have you think there are no side effects to pot use, but that is not true. It's the side effects, not the addiction, that are the issue. Perhaps the side effects are symptoms of an addiction, but I think it's more than that.

No one has claimed (nor do I think they believe) that there no side effects to MJ. But I think the majority of the opposing opinion is: how is pot different than any other "legal" drug. There are side effects to alcohol, not dissimilar to MJ. We understand that you have been affected by someone who had a negative experience with pot and that is not being discounted. It is more of a general question of "why should pot be illegal when alcohol is legal?" (just focusing on one comparative substance).

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

My issues with pot are less to do with addiction and more with what I've seen pot use do to people's behavior/personalities (when they're not high).

Isn't it also possible that those behavioral/personality issues were pre-existing and not a result of pot use?

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Oh, and by the way, yes I am calling for the legalization of crystal meth. I don't know that it has any medicinal properties ... and it may be more quickly destructive than legal alcohol or legal tobacco, but it's still, imo, a matter of individual choice if you want to kill yourself with drugs.

Well now I am going to jump in here, because you are off as to the nature of addiction.

Yes, you are right that meth is more quickly destructive, AND causes the disease of addiction, than many other drugs out there. Meth causes an incredible high which keeps you awake, makes you feel powerful, makes you horny as hell, but eventually gives you the "fvck-its" for your life, causes your body to destroy itself due to lack of sleep, permanent memory loss, permanent brain damage, paranoia and hallucinations.

I have heard hundreds upon hundreds of stories where people were people dabbled with alcohol and/or other drugs, but it was meth that finally brought them to their knees (or six feet under). I'm not waxing poetic here, I've known more people to die in the last three years than I've ever experienced in my 27 years prior, and it is heartbreaking. For those who think that using drugs is something that only affects them, next time there's a funeral I'll invite you along just for kicks.

Addiction is about having lost the power of choice. It is NOT a matter of "wanting to kill yourself with drugs"-- if there is any kind of "want", it's caused either by the drug itself, by the consequences of using, or by other issues like depression. Or many of those people don't WANT to die and overdose, which puts its own burden on society. But with meth you cross a line so quickly and you don't realize that you've "chosen" to have a disease or that you've "chosen" to die. Yes, you've made a mistake. Yes, you didn't think about the full consequences and now you'll have to live with them. But why make it so easy?

I do think that pot should be legalized but ONLY because a) the effects that pot has are relatively mild and/or b) it has medicinal purposes. Yes, you can get addicted to anything, but if alcohol is legal, pot should be too. It's a drug-by-drug basis, not a blanket.

[innerSpaceman]

What do you mean you don't realize you've chosen? Is that like the people who try heroin and don't realize they've chosen?

I don't know how to feel about this. Clearly I would want such substances to be branded with the most dire warnings, releases needed to be signed, layers upon layers of skull-and-crossbones packaging with 70 real-life horror stories to be read before you can get to the goods.

But I still want everyone to be free to do as they wish to their own bodies.


It's a terrible balancing act. But I can't go all hypocritical and say that MY drug should be legal and someone else's should not.


And I understand your thing about the non-blanket, drug-by-drug basis. But who makes those decisions for us???