The thing about pot compared to cigarettes is that it can change people a lot. I know people that are quite selfish and lazy since increasing the amount of pot they smoke. Since it happened it was probably in their personality that it could happen anyways, extensive marijuana smoking was just a catalyst, I'm not saying that everybody that smokes a lot of pot will get like that, but I know people that couldn't have turned into what they did with out it. That's really the only thing I don't like about pot, is that some people like it too much, and it's kinda pathetic. The ecstasy ads don't bother me as much because I've had a few times when I did a bit too much for like a month or two, then not at all again for like a year, then a lot in a couple months or so, and after every time I remember why I had stopped before. I don't really like ads that say something can kill you using it once, because I don't regret using it at all, just so much in a short period of time. And I don't really like hearing that it melts/eats holes in your brain either because that's not true either, it can cause serotonin receptors to collapse after it's done abusing them, but it doesn't just put holes randomly throughout your brain. But it did cause, for about a month, a bunch of weird shiny/sparkly things if I got up too fast, that was no good and it really made me worry. But even though I don't agree with some of the ways the ads present things I think that they're needed because I thought me and my friends were getting into some stuff way too early, and kids now are getting into stuff even earlier.
Never say never. I am so utterly not the person now that I was at 18, it isn't even funny. Not saying 'never' keeps you from looking like a durned fool later.
I've been noticing a lot of "The Truth About Pot" ads on the net lately too. Ones that look pot friendly until you click-through.
Of course my views on pot are that it could be a huge cashcow...Make it barely legal though not limited to medicine, then tax the living daylights out of the smokers (pot, tobacco, etc.)
I don't drink, I don't smoke, never have, never will.
i don't think anyone plans on it. it's like those old commercials, we're the dood's like, when i grow up i'm gonna be a junkie. it was sarcastic. people don't look forward to it. but, eventually, odds are, you will try alcohol, and, with less likelihood, you might try cigarettes, and lesser still you may try marijuana and/or other "drugs". i used to think drinking and drugs were scary, and that cigarettes were stupid. Now I smoke, drink and use with a fair frequency. I used to say 'never' too, but now not so much anymore. Who knows what the future holds?
Here's a question... what do kids try BEFORE they smoke pot... ALCOHOL and CIGARETTES... the true gateway drugs.
ALCOHOL and CIGARETTES aren't sold via a network of criminals. Other drugs are -- the "gateway" thing isn't BS just because you've never experienced or seen it.
Random, slightly on-topic mini-story: I know someone who decided not to graduate and not to go to college because he thought he was making enough money selling weed to other students. He's been doing it for 3 years now, living in a s**thole of an apartment.
I'm not exactly sure what the perks of smoking are, so could someone please enlighten me? I've found all forms of smoking absolutely disgusting, so I've never quite understood this current fascination with pot, especially with high school students.
Random, slightly on-topic mini-story: I know someone who decided not to graduate and not to go to college because he thought he was making enough money selling weed to other students. He's been doing it for 3 years now, living in a s**thole of an apartment.
So he had a stupid business idea. Do we blame Crystal Pepsi on the execs drinking too much pepsi?
So he had a stupid business idea. Do we blame Crystal Pepsi on the execs drinking too much pepsi?
No, I just wanted to post the story. It really doesn't have any relevance to whether or not pot is bad. I'm not trying to justify anything with that story. Although you do wonder if he wasn't into pot in the first place if he might have gone a little further with his education and life...
So, anyone care to explain to me why exactly pot is so popular right now and any (if there are any) benefits? I've read so many posts on this board that state that pot has no harmful effects on people. Great. Are there any benefits? Why do people smoke it? Just to get high? Let me see if I understand this: People spend a decent amount of money on weed so they can get high....for...what? Recreation? Fun? Entertainment? Escapism? I just don't seem to understand why people have this pressing desire to smoke.
evidence from medical marijuana supporters, although mostly anecdotal until more 'studies' are funded <insert catch-22 here... nobody wants to test "evil" drugs for "good" uses> suggest clinically measurable physiological and psychological impacts in a few of the following areas:
appetite stimulant for AIDS/MS/chemo patients who can't stomach food otherwise
pain killer for AIDS/MS/chemo patients who can't tolerate other drugs
eyeball pressure reliever for MS/Diabetes/Glaucoma patients
(and before you dis the use of "drugs for eyeballs", know that almost all Eye/Ear/Nose surgeries use cocaine derivatives as locals, still among the best topical anaesthetics known)
'mood altering' uses for chemically-sensitive (ie: no prozac) patients
comedy enhancer for cheech and chong film fans
okay, that last one is made up.
maybe some of the medical industry members can comment on the literature and policy environment
canadian politicians are still leery of full decriminalization, but not 'drug war' like some yanks
The real doctors, not the apologists, agree that pot isn't good for you. Long term recreational use will impact your brain and slow you down, period.
Whether or ot it has health benefits under certain conditions is besides the point. All sorts of palliative drugs help dying people feel better as they pass. All sorts of pain killers help people with chronic conditions. Many mood altering drugs help people with clinical disorders. You don't really want to be taking any of them if there's nothing wrong with you to begin with, as all have side-effects.
There's plenty of good peer reviewed work that shows just how bad it can be.
Now, perhaps there isn't enough to show how it might benefit those with certain conditions, but that is no license for it's haphazard (recreational) use.
Current public opinion is purely a function these conflated attitudes about recreational use and the possibilities of medical use: nothing more than "users" distorting the medical angle for their own self serving ends. Propaganda, bullshit, whatever you wanna call it and nothing more or less.
Experience will tell anyone that the RAND explanation is clearly correct.
Interesting. On the other hand, the notion of gateways more generally makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. Human behavior changes gradually. It's hard to believe that if you went up to someone and said "hey let's shoot some heroin" they'd do it if they hadn't used any other drugs. But if they start out using other drugs first, and accept the idea of using illegal drugs to get high, it certainly seems plausible to me that they're going to be more likely to use other, "harder" drugs in the future.
The real doctors, not the apologists, agree that pot isn't good for you. Long term recreational use will impact your brain and slow you down, period.
i'm glad we have you here, Matsu, to tell us who the real doctors are, and who the apologists are.
Quote:
Whether or ot it has health benefits under certain conditions is besides the point. All sorts of palliative drugs help dying people feel better as they pass. All sorts of pain killers help people with chronic conditions. Many mood altering drugs help people with clinical disorders. You don't really want to be taking any of them if there's nothing wrong with you to begin with, as all have side-effects.
well, its not for you to decide what i want to be taking if i'm willing to take on the side effects. i'm perfectly ok with all the short term side effects i've noticed, and read about. and, i have not been thoroughly convinced of the long term side effects.
Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence.
From what I read, pot is only harmful wrt IQ, if you smoke 5j/wk. most people i know do not smoke that amount.
and furthermore, it says "The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8 ), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6)." Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but if not, light pot use seems to help your IQ. And I noticed nothing about long term effects.
Quote:
Reduces blood flow to the brain probably explains some of the pain killing effect aswell as the impact on global intelligence.
perhaps it is the cause of the temporary loss of global intelligence in heavy smokers. the pain killing effect is more likely due to the release of endorphins. i tried to find the article, but it wanted a log/pas. because i was wondering if they had a control group of long term users, who quit. the summary mentions testing shortly after use (1.6 days). i'm inclined to think that after more time, blood flow reguevenates.
this i have no trouble believing. smoking anything will clearly hurt the mouth, trachea, lungs and all.
Quote:
There's plenty of good peer reviewed work that shows just how bad it can be.
But, if a person is completely aprised of the potential consequences, should they not then be allowed opportunity to try? i am fully willing to use despite all the medical evidence you have shown me, and others i have seen on my own. i would like to live freely in society without fear of imprisonment.
Quote:
Now, perhaps there isn't enough to show how it might benefit those with certain conditions, but that is no license for it's haphazard (recreational) use.
license for recreational use is implicit in freedom. the government has no rights over what i do unto myself. and, being informed of the dangers, i can see no reason why they should still be allowed to restrict my usage.
Quote:
Current public opinion is purely a function these conflated attitudes about recreational use and the possibilities of medical use: nothing more than "users" distorting the medical angle for their own self serving ends. Propaganda, bullshit, whatever you wanna call it and nothing more or less.
i am in favor of medical marijuana, because i think it can help people; particularly people who are in end-stages of a disease, where potential long term effects are nil, and short term effects are miniscule compared to the trauma. ,y feeling on this issue is independant, insomuch as my conscious mind will allow, from my own want or desire to use. yes. i think it'll be easier to legalize when its medicinally legal. but i don't push it for that reason. it can help people. besides, there are a large amount of non-users who are infavor of medical marijuana. are they in on the scam too? (attention pot heads: when is the next secret meeting, where we discuss plans to take over the medical profession? )
Interesting. On the other hand, the notion of gateways more generally makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. Human behavior changes gradually. It's hard to believe that if you went up to someone and said "hey let's shoot some heroin" they'd do it if they hadn't used any other drugs. But if they start out using other drugs first, and accept the idea of using illegal drugs to get high, it certainly seems plausible to me that they're going to be more likely to use other, "harder" drugs in the future.
yes, that is intuitive and makes sense. But, if using is just a matter of steps for a person, isn't it then obvious that marijuana wasn't a factor in itself. Marijuana was just a test so they could hit the hard shit. I don't believe that pot itself causes people to hunger or seek out "harder" drugs. And that is precisely what I think is being implied with the gateway theory.
If his handle stands for "Dave Matthews Band" he'll change his ways at his first DM concert.
My handle does stand for Dave Matthews Band, and I've been to 14 DMB shows, and stayed clean and sober throughout all of them. I do go to parties, but I don't drink or smoke. I can have fun without that, I've been successful at having fun without the aid of any kind of drugs/alcohol for the past 18 years. I'm usually the DD, and that doesn't bother me, I figure I've saved a few lives that way. This is the way I choose to live. I don't condemn anyone for drinking or smoking...that is their choice, it's cool with me. I just don't want anyone to get hurt when they do it. I think if I can make it through college without getting into any of that stuff than I won't have to worry about it for the rest of my life.
Interesting. On the other hand, the notion of gateways more generally makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. Human behavior changes gradually. It's hard to believe that if you went up to someone and said "hey let's shoot some heroin" they'd do it if they hadn't used any other drugs. But if they start out using other drugs first, and accept the idea of using illegal drugs to get high, it certainly seems plausible to me that they're going to be more likely to use other, "harder" drugs in the future.
I think the main influence is having the network available, but the "incremental" approach makes sense.
Let's put it this way: every hard drug abuser I've known (dozens, probably) started with grass. All of them. Not a couple. I've known plenty of "casual" and habitual pot users, too, that never went beyond smoking pot (some of them smoked it like it was cigarettes), but plenty of them became addicted and had obvious side effects.
The "not a gateway" thing is ludicrous to anyone who's actually been in or around the drug culture. That doesn't include folks who snuck joints in junior high or their frat house.
Let's put it this way: every hard drug abuser I've known (dozens, probably) started with grass. All of them. Not a couple. I've known plenty of "casual" and habitual pot users, too, that never went beyond smoking pot (some of them smoked it like it was cigarettes), but plenty of them became addicted and had obvious side effects.
Pot is a hugely popular drug. Virtually the only reason that someone DOESN'T smoke pot at some point is that they are afraid of it (ie, they're mummy's boys). Of course people who go on to hard drugs are going to smoke pot, but that doesn't mean that smoking pot has any bearing on whether you end up doing hard drugs.
ALCOHOL and CIGARETTES aren't sold via a network of criminals. Other drugs are -- the "gateway" thing isn't BS just because you've never experienced or seen it.
So if pot were legal, it wouldn't be a gateway drug? Isn't that an argument FOR legalization?
(I personally am in the cash-crop crowd with Eugene)
Hey Freak, I'm not so sure the government shouldn't tell you what and what not to ingest when there are obvious social costs that we all have to pay for down the line -- things like courts , medical bills, rehabilitation. Courts costs vis a vis possession might disappear, but what about DUI, and other liabilities from users performing duties while intoxicated? Greater permissiveness DOES tend to negatively impact ressponsible behavior -- we've seen that with alcohol. You give people a little, and a significant portion try to get away with a lot more.
Of course all that I write has a danger to it. Today weed, tommorow tobacco and alcohol, or perhaps something more benign than that. Freedom carries some implicit dangers too: real freedom assumes that people have some right to harm themselves to their own ends, if they wish, and that those ends needn't be lofty (medical) and may be selfish, if not frivolous (if fun can be deemed frivolous at all, since fun is a primary avenue to happiness, and happiness occupies a high position in the philosohical framework of the constitution... "life, liberty and the pursuit of..." )
The goal for any society becomes to make some intelligent decisions about what acceptable risks measure the freedom of a persom against the safety of us all. I am a libertarian at heart, but I keep a conscience and an honest appraisal.
Is weed more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco? Does it have an organized crime network behind it? One that we could quash via legalization? Will legalization increase or decrease the acceleration of other drugs into the society?
Sticking my finger in the air, I think it's a matter of time before we put pot in a state of controlled legality, and that it might help diminish the gateway effects of the drug by nullifying its distribution network.
However, NOTHING is ever decided on its merits, and it may be a waste of energy for me to write about why.
When I talk about the issue here, I do so no differently than a propagandist approaching any issue: what are we selling, and how are we going to (mis)represent it? The grassroots (AHHAHA!!!) lobby for weed is selling one thing for another, both may be valid, but the slight of idea has a basic dishonesty about it. Something I know well.
This is the way I choose to live. I don't condemn anyone for drinking or smoking...that is their choice, it's cool with me.
Good for you. Too many people who abstain from drinking / smoking / whatever wear it like a badge of morality. And good for you for being able to do your own thing at 18 with a peer group that chooses a different lifestyle. I hope they appreciate your doing all the driving.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
I'm not so sure the government shouldn't tell you what and what not to ingest when there are obvious social costs that we all have to pay for down the line -- things like courts , medical bills, rehabilitation.
Surely that could be covered by taxation of the newly legal recreational drugs being sold?
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
[Legalizing pot] might help diminish the gateway effects of the drug by nullifying its distribution network.
This is exactly the case. The only reason it could ever be considered a 'gateway drug' is because it brings users into contact with people that sell other illegal drugs. The only real problems that people end up having as a result of their smoking pot would be removed if it were legalized.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Marijuana is likely not a gateway drug. RAND did a study not too long ago on this:
http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html
Experience will tell anyone that the RAND explanation is clearly correct.
This RAND studty is so obviouse that it wont make sense to people who want to think that marijuana should equal jail time.
I have always known its true . .
I smoked marijuana simply because it was there before I got to heroin or LSD or meth or X or . . . . . uh . . . I forget!!!
it was in no way the reason
. .
but, the important thing to ask yourself is this: can we seriously consider the following equation civilized?
Marijuana possession=a crime=time in jail?
in jail with rapists, murderers, real felons?
it is stupid and backward
Originally posted by Kickaha
Never say never. I am so utterly not the person now that I was at 18, it isn't even funny. Not saying 'never' keeps you from looking like a durned fool later.
Yeah, no kidding. This can't be stressed enough.
Of course my views on pot are that it could be a huge cashcow...Make it barely legal though not limited to medicine, then tax the living daylights out of the smokers (pot, tobacco, etc.)
Originally posted by DMBand0026
I don't drink, I don't smoke, never have, never will.
i don't think anyone plans on it. it's like those old commercials, we're the dood's like, when i grow up i'm gonna be a junkie. it was sarcastic. people don't look forward to it. but, eventually, odds are, you will try alcohol, and, with less likelihood, you might try cigarettes, and lesser still you may try marijuana and/or other "drugs". i used to think drinking and drugs were scary, and that cigarettes were stupid. Now I smoke, drink and use with a fair frequency. I used to say 'never' too, but now not so much anymore. Who knows what the future holds?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Then they give you the "gateway drug" B.S.
Here's a question... what do kids try BEFORE they smoke pot... ALCOHOL and CIGARETTES... the true gateway drugs.
ALCOHOL and CIGARETTES aren't sold via a network of criminals. Other drugs are -- the "gateway" thing isn't BS just because you've never experienced or seen it.
I'm not exactly sure what the perks of smoking are, so could someone please enlighten me? I've found all forms of smoking absolutely disgusting, so I've never quite understood this current fascination with pot, especially with high school students.
"Wow, I'm cool because I sit at home and smoke?!"
Errr...sure..I guess...
Originally posted by job
Random, slightly on-topic mini-story: I know someone who decided not to graduate and not to go to college because he thought he was making enough money selling weed to other students. He's been doing it for 3 years now, living in a s**thole of an apartment.
So he had a stupid business idea. Do we blame Crystal Pepsi on the execs drinking too much pepsi?
Originally posted by giant
So he had a stupid business idea. Do we blame Crystal Pepsi on the execs drinking too much pepsi?
No, I just wanted to post the story. It really doesn't have any relevance to whether or not pot is bad. I'm not trying to justify anything with that story. Although you do wonder if he wasn't into pot in the first place if he might have gone a little further with his education and life...
So, anyone care to explain to me why exactly pot is so popular right now and any (if there are any) benefits? I've read so many posts on this board that state that pot has no harmful effects on people. Great. Are there any benefits? Why do people smoke it? Just to get high? Let me see if I understand this: People spend a decent amount of money on weed so they can get high....for...what? Recreation? Fun? Entertainment? Escapism? I just don't seem to understand why people have this pressing desire to smoke.
appetite stimulant for AIDS/MS/chemo patients who can't stomach food otherwise
pain killer for AIDS/MS/chemo patients who can't tolerate other drugs
eyeball pressure reliever for MS/Diabetes/Glaucoma patients
(and before you dis the use of "drugs for eyeballs", know that almost all Eye/Ear/Nose surgeries use cocaine derivatives as locals, still among the best topical anaesthetics known)
'mood altering' uses for chemically-sensitive (ie: no prozac) patients
comedy enhancer for cheech and chong film fans
okay, that last one is made up.
maybe some of the medical industry members can comment on the literature and policy environment
canadian politicians are still leery of full decriminalization, but not 'drug war' like some yanks
Whether or ot it has health benefits under certain conditions is besides the point. All sorts of palliative drugs help dying people feel better as they pass. All sorts of pain killers help people with chronic conditions. Many mood altering drugs help people with clinical disorders. You don't really want to be taking any of them if there's nothing wrong with you to begin with, as all have side-effects.
lowers your memory and attention, other research shows it even more drastically.
Makes you dumber when you use, not just while you use, though your global intelligence returns to normal after you no longer use
Reduces blood flow to the brain probably explains some of the pain killing effect aswell as the impact on global intelligence.
Plenty of vascular drawbacks.
There's plenty of good peer reviewed work that shows just how bad it can be.
Now, perhaps there isn't enough to show how it might benefit those with certain conditions, but that is no license for it's haphazard (recreational) use.
Current public opinion is purely a function these conflated attitudes about recreational use and the possibilities of medical use: nothing more than "users" distorting the medical angle for their own self serving ends. Propaganda, bullshit, whatever you wanna call it and nothing more or less.
Originally posted by giant
Marijuana is likely not a gateway drug. RAND did a study not too long ago on this:
http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html
Experience will tell anyone that the RAND explanation is clearly correct.
Interesting. On the other hand, the notion of gateways more generally makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. Human behavior changes gradually. It's hard to believe that if you went up to someone and said "hey let's shoot some heroin" they'd do it if they hadn't used any other drugs. But if they start out using other drugs first, and accept the idea of using illegal drugs to get high, it certainly seems plausible to me that they're going to be more likely to use other, "harder" drugs in the future.
Originally posted by Matsu
The real doctors, not the apologists, agree that pot isn't good for you. Long term recreational use will impact your brain and slow you down, period.
i'm glad we have you here, Matsu, to tell us who the real doctors are, and who the apologists are.
Whether or ot it has health benefits under certain conditions is besides the point. All sorts of palliative drugs help dying people feel better as they pass. All sorts of pain killers help people with chronic conditions. Many mood altering drugs help people with clinical disorders. You don't really want to be taking any of them if there's nothing wrong with you to begin with, as all have side-effects.
well, its not for you to decide what i want to be taking if i'm willing to take on the side effects. i'm perfectly ok with all the short term side effects i've noticed, and read about. and, i have not been thoroughly convinced of the long term side effects.
lowers your memory and attention, other research shows it even more drastically.
i had trouble accessing this link.
Makes you dumber when you use, not just while you use, though your global intelligence returns to normal after you no longer use
well, i disagree with your interpretation there.
from the link
Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence.
From what I read, pot is only harmful wrt IQ, if you smoke 5j/wk. most people i know do not smoke that amount.
and furthermore, it says "The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8 ), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6)." Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but if not, light pot use seems to help your IQ. And I noticed nothing about long term effects.
Reduces blood flow to the brain probably explains some of the pain killing effect aswell as the impact on global intelligence.
perhaps it is the cause of the temporary loss of global intelligence in heavy smokers. the pain killing effect is more likely due to the release of endorphins. i tried to find the article, but it wanted a log/pas. because i was wondering if they had a control group of long term users, who quit. the summary mentions testing shortly after use (1.6 days). i'm inclined to think that after more time, blood flow reguevenates.
Plenty of vascular drawbacks.
this i have no trouble believing. smoking anything will clearly hurt the mouth, trachea, lungs and all.
There's plenty of good peer reviewed work that shows just how bad it can be.
But, if a person is completely aprised of the potential consequences, should they not then be allowed opportunity to try? i am fully willing to use despite all the medical evidence you have shown me, and others i have seen on my own. i would like to live freely in society without fear of imprisonment.
Now, perhaps there isn't enough to show how it might benefit those with certain conditions, but that is no license for it's haphazard (recreational) use.
license for recreational use is implicit in freedom. the government has no rights over what i do unto myself. and, being informed of the dangers, i can see no reason why they should still be allowed to restrict my usage.
Current public opinion is purely a function these conflated attitudes about recreational use and the possibilities of medical use: nothing more than "users" distorting the medical angle for their own self serving ends. Propaganda, bullshit, whatever you wanna call it and nothing more or less.
i am in favor of medical marijuana, because i think it can help people; particularly people who are in end-stages of a disease, where potential long term effects are nil, and short term effects are miniscule compared to the trauma. ,y feeling on this issue is independant, insomuch as my conscious mind will allow, from my own want or desire to use. yes. i think it'll be easier to legalize when its medicinally legal. but i don't push it for that reason. it can help people. besides, there are a large amount of non-users who are infavor of medical marijuana. are they in on the scam too? (attention pot heads: when is the next secret meeting, where we discuss plans to take over the medical profession?
Originally posted by BRussell
Interesting. On the other hand, the notion of gateways more generally makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. Human behavior changes gradually. It's hard to believe that if you went up to someone and said "hey let's shoot some heroin" they'd do it if they hadn't used any other drugs. But if they start out using other drugs first, and accept the idea of using illegal drugs to get high, it certainly seems plausible to me that they're going to be more likely to use other, "harder" drugs in the future.
yes, that is intuitive and makes sense. But, if using is just a matter of steps for a person, isn't it then obvious that marijuana wasn't a factor in itself. Marijuana was just a test so they could hit the hard shit. I don't believe that pot itself causes people to hunger or seek out "harder" drugs. And that is precisely what I think is being implied with the gateway theory.
Originally posted by pensieve
If his handle stands for "Dave Matthews Band" he'll change his ways at his first DM concert.
My handle does stand for Dave Matthews Band, and I've been to 14 DMB shows, and stayed clean and sober throughout all of them. I do go to parties, but I don't drink or smoke. I can have fun without that, I've been successful at having fun without the aid of any kind of drugs/alcohol for the past 18 years. I'm usually the DD, and that doesn't bother me, I figure I've saved a few lives that way. This is the way I choose to live. I don't condemn anyone for drinking or smoking...that is their choice, it's cool with me. I just don't want anyone to get hurt when they do it. I think if I can make it through college without getting into any of that stuff than I won't have to worry about it for the rest of my life.
Originally posted by BRussell
Interesting. On the other hand, the notion of gateways more generally makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. Human behavior changes gradually. It's hard to believe that if you went up to someone and said "hey let's shoot some heroin" they'd do it if they hadn't used any other drugs. But if they start out using other drugs first, and accept the idea of using illegal drugs to get high, it certainly seems plausible to me that they're going to be more likely to use other, "harder" drugs in the future.
I think the main influence is having the network available, but the "incremental" approach makes sense.
Let's put it this way: every hard drug abuser I've known (dozens, probably) started with grass. All of them. Not a couple. I've known plenty of "casual" and habitual pot users, too, that never went beyond smoking pot (some of them smoked it like it was cigarettes), but plenty of them became addicted and had obvious side effects.
The "not a gateway" thing is ludicrous to anyone who's actually been in or around the drug culture. That doesn't include folks who snuck joints in junior high or their frat house.
Originally posted by finboy
Let's put it this way: every hard drug abuser I've known (dozens, probably) started with grass. All of them. Not a couple. I've known plenty of "casual" and habitual pot users, too, that never went beyond smoking pot (some of them smoked it like it was cigarettes), but plenty of them became addicted and had obvious side effects.
Pot is a hugely popular drug. Virtually the only reason that someone DOESN'T smoke pot at some point is that they are afraid of it (ie, they're mummy's boys). Of course people who go on to hard drugs are going to smoke pot, but that doesn't mean that smoking pot has any bearing on whether you end up doing hard drugs.
Barto
Originally posted by finboy
ALCOHOL and CIGARETTES aren't sold via a network of criminals. Other drugs are -- the "gateway" thing isn't BS just because you've never experienced or seen it.
So if pot were legal, it wouldn't be a gateway drug? Isn't that an argument FOR legalization?
(I personally am in the cash-crop crowd with Eugene)
Of course all that I write has a danger to it. Today weed, tommorow tobacco and alcohol, or perhaps something more benign than that. Freedom carries some implicit dangers too: real freedom assumes that people have some right to harm themselves to their own ends, if they wish, and that those ends needn't be lofty (medical) and may be selfish, if not frivolous (if fun can be deemed frivolous at all, since fun is a primary avenue to happiness, and happiness occupies a high position in the philosohical framework of the constitution... "life, liberty and the pursuit of..." )
The goal for any society becomes to make some intelligent decisions about what acceptable risks measure the freedom of a persom against the safety of us all. I am a libertarian at heart, but I keep a conscience and an honest appraisal.
Is weed more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco? Does it have an organized crime network behind it? One that we could quash via legalization? Will legalization increase or decrease the acceleration of other drugs into the society?
Sticking my finger in the air, I think it's a matter of time before we put pot in a state of controlled legality, and that it might help diminish the gateway effects of the drug by nullifying its distribution network.
However, NOTHING is ever decided on its merits, and it may be a waste of energy for me to write about why.
When I talk about the issue here, I do so no differently than a propagandist approaching any issue: what are we selling, and how are we going to (mis)represent it? The grassroots (AHHAHA!!!) lobby for weed is selling one thing for another, both may be valid, but the slight of idea has a basic dishonesty about it. Something I know well.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
This is the way I choose to live. I don't condemn anyone for drinking or smoking...that is their choice, it's cool with me.
Good for you. Too many people who abstain from drinking / smoking / whatever wear it like a badge of morality. And good for you for being able to do your own thing at 18 with a peer group that chooses a different lifestyle. I hope they appreciate your doing all the driving.
Originally posted by Matsu
I'm not so sure the government shouldn't tell you what and what not to ingest when there are obvious social costs that we all have to pay for down the line -- things like courts , medical bills, rehabilitation.
Surely that could be covered by taxation of the newly legal recreational drugs being sold?
Originally posted by Matsu
[Legalizing pot] might help diminish the gateway effects of the drug by nullifying its distribution network.
This is exactly the case. The only reason it could ever be considered a 'gateway drug' is because it brings users into contact with people that sell other illegal drugs. The only real problems that people end up having as a result of their smoking pot would be removed if it were legalized.