Legalize | OlyBlog

Navigation

User login

Online users

Berd
Guglielmo
The Original Yoda
Meta Hogan
OlyDowntowner
Rick
agathafrye

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Sara Ballard
GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart

Legalize

Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 4:30pm.

harm reduction

I heard of yet another local heroin death recently, I don't really know any details. I understand that whether heroin is legal or not might have had nothing to do with this particular death.

But it got me to thinking about legalization, again, still.

Norm Stamper, former chief of the Seattle Police Department, has an essay up on AlterNet titled How Legalizing Drugs will end the Violence, this quote especially has me intrigued:

Regulated legalization of all drugs -- with stiffened penalties for driving impaired or furnishing to kids -- would bring an immediate halt to the violence. How? By (1) dramatically reducing the cost of these drugs, (2) shifting massive enforcement resources to prevention and treatment and (3) driving drug dealers out of business: no product, no profit, no incentive.

This, plus the harm reduction model makes sense to me.

Why is alcohol legal, while heroin is not? Why is prozac legal but cannabis is not?

Wikipedia has an entry on Arguments for and against drug prohibition, including ideas on compromises.

Sarah's blog
Login or register to post comments

I don't think it would be a

Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 7:24pm.

I don't think it would be a good idea to legalize any currently illicit drugs, but they should certainly all be decriminalized. It makes no sense to me to lock up someone over, and over, and over, and over again for an addiction that they are helpless to break.

Who was it that insanity is to keep doing the same thing over again, expecting different results?

This quote has...

Submitted by Rick on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 7:50pm.

...many possible sources:

Ben Franklin
Albert Einstein
Rita Mae Brown

Just to name a few.

Decriminalize

Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 8:19pm.

Decriminalizing would be a great next step.

Whatever we are doing currently in the U.S.A. concerning drugs obviously isn't working. So, yeah, time to do something else.

I will say this...

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 7:57pm.

As a very anti-drug person I think you make a point Phil. Throwing abusers in prison or jail doesn't always seem to be the best way of dealing with it. I think there should be certain punishments ( no access to weapons, possibly restrictions in driving, CPS involved if they have children ) for users, but where I tend to get upset is dealers. Do we just let some jerk who's selling drugs to teens on the street walk? What if he's not a user, just a seller? I'm far more inclined to want the book thrown at a dealer than I am a user.

I sympathize strongly with

Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 8:10pm.

I sympathize strongly with your view here Norm, particularly the higher level dealers like the meth ringleader who's all over the Olympian today. Trouble is that it's hard sometimes to distinguish dealers from users... what about four guys passing a needle? Are they each a dealer for passing it along? How about a person who deals to friends to support his habit? I've known a number of people who buy heroine for their friends who are "dopesick" out laying in the woods puking on themselves. To these folks, buying heroine for a sick friend is considered the compassionate thing to do. Twisted world they live in.

I was thinking more along

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 8:18pm.

I was thinking more along the lines of the guy that the police catch with 50 dime bags on his person saying he was going to smoke them all himself.

I really hate meth and its

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:52am.

I really hate meth and its impact. It makes me wonder about decriminalization, but I don't think criminalization works. I am not sure how the processed drugs like meth, heroin, cocaine would work in a decriminalization model.

A thought

Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 8:33pm.

A thought on this is that legalization, or at least decriminalization, would limit the profit potential for dealers. Less profit could mean possibly less crime and less violence.

I wonder, if drugs were legal, then people selling them could be legit. Legit business people. Are most people who deal drugs now people who are drawn to the criminal and violent aspects of the trade, or are they at bottom line business minded people just trying to make a buck?

I definitely agree with the continued need for consequences. When a person abuses another person, there has to be consequences.

Does drug use -make- a person violent? Or is most violence caused by the fact that drugs are illegal? I suppose in various cases both can be true.

I wonder if most drugs that are now illegal could instead be regulated like alcohol.

I hate being a pessimist

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 8:48pm.

"I wonder if most drugs that are now illegal could instead be regulated like alcohol."

Never. I don't think it would be possible. Not only would you have the age factor, but all of the different types of drugs, so many of them being able to be made at home, if you tried to regulate it like alcohol you'd have another moonshine situation. That's one of the bigger arguments for legalization of marijuana is that the government doesn't want to give people that power when they can't regulate it.

IF drugs were ever legalized, or uncriminalized the initial time period ( I can't make an estimate ) would be a shit-storm.

Sometimes pessimism is realism

Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 9:13pm.

Yeah, I need to read up more on what is happening in other countries. For instance I don't know how well the U.K. system is working where addicts can get prescriptions.

What if drugs were legal when properly regulated? Though of course there still would be illegal trade, as there is now for prescription drugs.

Good idea

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 9:19pm.

and don't forget the problems we have nationally with alcohol..and it's completely legal. Not to mention cigarettes, and legal prescription drugs being abused. It may help in the long run, but the short run is going to be confusing. :)

Maybe

Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 08/10/2006 - 9:25pm.

Maybe I'll go with my other plan which is to hold up a big ol' stop sign in an effort to make people stop with the violence, think that will work?

Between OperaGirl and I, we have it covered. I'll wave a stop sign while she makes the citizen arrests. And we will insist that OlyCop handle the results. I'm sure that will make us reaaaaaal popular.

Where's the Fear?

Submitted by CIAGuy on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 5:37am.

The fear of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs comes from the potential loss of control. Every Joe or Jane who wanted a doobie or meth fix would be able to "roll their own" and fly below the regulatory radar. Look at the resources we spend fighting pot...there are plenty of powerful interests with lots to lose, most especially the prison-industrial complex.

I agree

Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 6:35am.

I too believe most if not all USE of illicit drugs should be decriminalized.

Of course, you know we would

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 8:42am.

Of course, you know we would still be paying for people who can't handle themselves.

Decriminalization is a good idea but it would become a free pass for people to take advantage of an expanded Welfare State.

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."

??

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 9:48am.

Can you expand on this a bit, TFI?

Decriminalization is fine,

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 11:44am.

Decriminalization is fine, but we shouldn't be stuck with the bill for another person's choice.

It should be the same way with tobacco and alcohol, too.

We shouldn't get stuck with

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 7:46am.

We shouldn't get stuck with the bill for another person's choice. Exactly the way I feel about Dubya's war choices.

Public policy is all about our community choices and their impact on us collectively and individually. We are already stuck with the bill for the other person's choice. We pay the law enforcement and incarceration costs at an enormous rate, but we won't have a rational discussion and evaluation about our public policy about drug addiction that would lead to the conclusion that shifting the focus from punishment to treatment would save us all a huge amount of money and probably be a more humane, compassionate approach to some of our neighbors because of the moral value that attends.

Bad news, TFI. You are already stuck with the bill. So am I.

The usual approach to sorting this kind of public policy transition is through pilot projects. Shift up to 90% of the law enforcement and incarceration funding into a treatment model and measure the outcomes. I suspect we see decreased recidivism plus the 10% savings right off the top. I think that is the drug court model to a certain extent.

I'll be explicit: I would

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 9:27am.

I'll be explicit: I would pull the plug on the current law enforcement model for determining which citizens should be imprisoned over certain substances. If people want to do a line of coke off of a hooker's ass, they should be free to do so.

But we shouldn't be paying the bill when someone OD's.

I'm not saying let's cut the cost in one area and redirect it into another.

I don't want government involved with people's choices or consequences.

So

Submitted by Sarah on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 9:31am.

So would you leave the person to die?

Yes, of course TFI would

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 9:52am.

Yes, of course TFI would leave them to die. And if turned out later that the od'd person actually died from a brain hemorrhage unrelated to drug use or life style, that's too bad. If they actually died in diabetic coma instead of drug od, that's too bad.

TFI's immature and nonsensical position on this requires that if you can't drag yourself to the ER and prove you are worthy of treatment and insured, then you die. If Dubya gets a third term, maybe TFI can sign on as the Surgeon General. TFI's health care model would free up resources for an attack on Iran and Syria.

So if the government isn't

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:11am.

So if the government isn't funding health care, it can't be done?

What happened to getting away from The System and working as people to help each other?

This idea that if the government does not force us to pay for Concern X implies that people are inherently bad. Essentially what you are saying is that if one entity doesn't use force in order to progress an end (in this case, health care), it will simply fade into oblivion and nobody will be creative enough to come up with a solution.

Because if we didn't have government, it couldn't be done.

As my own personal policy,

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 9:54am.

As my own personal policy, no, I wouldn't.

Do I think the government should intervene in order to prevent a death which was caused by the person's own poor decision-making process? No, I don't.

The job of the government is not to protect us from ourselves. Well, at least it shouldn't be. It is, though, and there's no changing it in today's day in age.

Details please?

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:13am.

You would not let them die?

Please explain how your personal policy would address the situation when you come upon someone comatose on the ground, maybe drug od, maybe diabetic coma, maybe cerebral hemorrhage - no way for you to know. You wouldn't leave them to die, so you would render aid? Scoop them up, take them to ER, cover the ER diagnosis and treatment costs personally until it could be determined if they have insurance or resources?

I would help to the extent

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:31am.

I would help to the extent possible while also dialing 911.

Also, I don't see 911 as being overbearing or intrusive.

But now with the ambulance and medical care we're getting into private cost. So let's say this victim can't pay for their ER diagnosis and treatment. Because people believe government should carry the burden and fill the gap, they blame government.

Now, in my little world I would hope that people would be able to work together and reach a solution. At the very least, people should take care of their own (in short, close friends and family). Of course, not every has such a solid network.

How should they be dealt with? As a matter of public policy, the government should leave them alone. As people, we should be working to help. If there is someone who cannot afford to take care of their medical costs and has no way to do so other than government, that's not the fault of the government. That's the failure of us as a society.

911 is a govt function. It

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:08am.

911 is a govt function. It delivers folks to ERs where the law requires treatment. Folks work at ERs and expect/need to get paid. The payer of last resort is govt - medicaid. If you want to enact family responsibility laws to have related individuals pay bills, there is an intiative process. Go for it.

Does your position make any sense?

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 9:47am.

"But we shouldn't be paying the bill when someone OD's."

We pay the bill when someone od's. W pay their ER treatment and we pay the incarceration and punishment followup. That's not likely to change. The question is what are we paying for and does it make sense? Your position is immature and non-sensical.

We pay the bill for other peoples' choices. We pay higher auto insurance rates because lots of people drive too fast, follow too close. We higher medical insurance rates because lots of people smoke, are overweight, think that driving fast is exercise. Whether we should or should not have to pay the bill is moot. We do pay the bill.

The question is one of public policy and are we getting the results we seek from our payments.

If you want to avoid paying the bill for other peoples' choices I think Antarctica is the continent for you. Property taxes are low but the infrastructure leaves something to be desired.

My point is only "immature

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:04am.

My point is only "immature and non-sensical" because it has become part of mainstream thinking that it is the responsibility of our elected leaders to ensure we are protected from ourselves.

We're voluntarily paying higher auto insurance and medical insurance rates for a service. It's a business and they're simply covering losses.

So yes, I acknowledge that I voluntarily pay a high auto insurance rate in part because of other people (and since I've had two accidents, other people are paying more because of me).

The point, however, is that everyone is voluntarily paying into the system.

The overwhelming majority of my taxes are not supporting programs which I would normally volunteer currency to. That is taken by force.

"Whether we should or should not have to pay the bill is moot."

Why? Because we're paying for it, we should just accept it?

This is like saying that since we're already paying for an enormous military we should just accept it, since it's not going to change (especially since foreign policy is dictating that it can't be reduced).

"Whether we should or should

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:19am.

"Whether we should or should not have to pay the bill is moot."

Why? Because we're paying for it, we should just accept it?

No, we should not accept it simply because we are paying, but because one way or another, we are going to pay. Either through insurance rates, through taxes, through replacing auto windows/radios... One way or the other, some part of the cost will accrue to us. We should consider our options, make our payments count. I would like to feel that my payments are cost-effective.

Nice

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:16am.

Nobody is knocking your point of view Mike, don't start insulting the point of view's of others, we are all better than that.

Have you worked in the medical field? It's really disheartening seeing the same morons over and over again that can't or won't get a handle on their own life. I'm not saying it's an easy thing, but when you treat the same person time after time because they refuse to take care of themselves it begins to make you wonder why you have the job that you do. So although I may not agree 100% with TFI on his thinking, I can certainly understand where he comes from, and moving to Antartica isn't going to help the situation. If it did I'm sure half of America would have moved down there after Bush won the last election.

Read carefully. I worked

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:26am.

Read carefully. I worked 14 years for a certain local Catholic health care system. Saw the repeat customers. I work now in local court systems, often involved with families with chemical dependency problems. I recognize the situation.

I think it is immature and non-sensical to say that it shouldn't be this way. It is this way. A mature and logical approach has to recognize the facts on the ground, then start planning responses. Simply saying I shouldn't have to pay for other peoples' bad choices is immature and non-sensical. There are reasonable questions and positions about how much should I have to pay? what should my payment purchase? but I shouldn't have to pay is a non-starter.

Ya follow, Norm?

Whoa

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:06am.

"Simply saying I shouldn't have to pay for other peoples' bad choices is immature and non-sensical."

You sir, are wrong. Why "should" we have to pay from people's bad choices? It is your belief that we should, and it already is this way, but do you assume that everyone agrees with you? I follow what you are saying but your position is one of it being your way or NO way. TFI is suggesting otherwise, and I see no problem with this. Why do we have to pay for other's mistakes? Can you give me a good reason besides "It is this way." ? Gangs in inner-cities are killing each other all the time, should we just sit back and say "It is this way." and leave it alone?

Ok, so you believe TFI's point of view is immature and non-sensical, but I think your point of view on this matter is stubborn and arrogant. Would you like to throw around a few more of those? I can come up with them all day if you'd like, or you can just realize that not everyone is going to agree with your opinion on this matter.

I think he's pointing at an

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:13am.

I think he's pointing at an anthropological reality, Norm, not a political one. When someone makes a poor decision, it is bound to affect the people around them, whether we "pay" in dollars or not. To suggest that this is unfair is to fight against the nature of reality.

It follows, then, that rather than "paying" in terms of consequences for the behaviors of others, we ought to "pay" in terms of our actions to remedy the situation.

Yep.

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:49am.

Yep.

I don't think we should have

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:15am.

I don't think we should have to pay for other people's choices.

You with me?

Norm, please try to think

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:08am.

Norm, please try to think before you type, if you're being sarcastic it's not translating very well. Who are you calling "moron" exactly? I have an idea who your repeat customers might be, and they are not morons. Meta Hogan is a repeat customer of the emergency room because she doesn't have health insurance. Is she a "moron who refuses to take care of herself" or someone with no other option than to recieve charity care at a hospital which is required to provide charity care because of it's non-profit status? It's easy to call somebody a moron. Probably helps you sleep at night to think that those repear customers are just morons. Better than lying awake knowing there are folks out there whose basic needs are consistantly not being met.

Rob, please try to read my

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 1:01pm.

Rob, please try to read my statement and think before you type.

"It's really disheartening seeing the same morons over and over again that can't or won't get a handle on their own life." That's what I said, I'm not saying anyone who has to ask for financial assistance is a moron, I'm saying there are moron's that do end up doing the same stupid things. I have nothing against charity care, at all. I can just understand people's point when they say they shouldn't have to pay for peoples behaviors.

Now, on the same hand I can't go into what patients I've seen because that would be breaking a few laws, but let me give an example I've never seen. If you have a man, who consistently gets drunk every weekend, and get his butt kicked in a bar-fight everytime he drinks every weekend, would you say that man is a moron, or he's not having his basic needs met?

If you have a person who comes in a couple times a month because he OD's on whatever drug you want to choose, and you try to get them in a rehab program everytime that they are in the hospital, but they refuse, is that person a moron, or are they not having their needs met?

If you have a person that comes into the ER with an infectious wound in their leg, that they've had for months, and the reason it keeps becoming infected is because they refuse to change the bandages at their home ( they have a home, not homeless, that would present a problem obviously ) would you say they are a moron, or they aren't having their needs met?

Now, if someone comes in a half dozen times over the course of 4 months because they have strep throat that won't go away and the antibiotics aren't seeming to kill it and they can't afford to just go to a doctor? Then I'd say they have a problem and if they can't pay I hope that we can come to an arrangement that will not only help them medically, but not burden them financially.

Do you see the difference? Where are the needs of the first three not being met? If you refuse to help yourself why should society keep helping your sorry butt out? I am not against helping people become self-sufficient, and I realize not everyone can take that on in one fell swoop, but when you try and help a person, and they refuse to help themselves, where do you draw the line in that situation?

Now, if you reread what you wrote, and then read what I've just written, you'll realize I don't think Meta is a moron, and I don't think a vast majority of the charitable healthcare provided at that hospital are either, but there are those that clearly can be called a moron. If you don't wish to call them that I'm ok with that. There are many who would though.

I appreciate the

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 6:11pm.

I appreciate the clarification and apologize if I was being curt before. I wouldn't call the people in your examples morons, they may repeatedly make bad decisions, but I still wouldn't call them morons. To me, that kind of writes them off as lost causes. I like to operate, in my work at B&R and in my life, by the words of Dorothy Day: "We help those who deserve help, and we help those who don't." I've invited many people to leave my advocacy center over the years because of repeated innapropriate behavior, I've always let them come back when they are ready. Perhaps the people in your examples needs weren't met at a time in their lives when they really needed it. Perhaps they weren't taught by role models to have self respect. There is a reason for behavior that goes beyond a person being lazy or stupid. Why don't junkies just clean up? It's too easy of a question. You can only really understand why they can't if you've done it yourself and kicked. I haven't. I've had friends die because they couldn't kick, another just last month. I don't think they were morons (and I know you're not calling them that), I think they had a sickness that was untreated. Same with alcoholics.

Mostly, I think all behavior has a cause, and that cause is not merely stupidity, or laziness. There is something behind it. These are people we're talking about, and people are complicated (think of all the people you know).

Thanks Rob.Questions that

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 7:30pm.

Thanks Rob.

Questions that are too simple have answers that are two simple... When we ask questions (particularly about people) that are too simple, our questions blind us to reality. (That's a bone for you Mike. :)

It sometimes takes great people like Dorothy Day (or Selena) to lead us out of our own blindness.

True

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 9:23pm.

and we as humans tend to over-complicate many things in life. Sometimes the simple answers are the best.

After reading ALL of TFI's

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:08am.

After reading ALL of TFI's comments, I think I'm starting to get where he's coming from. Though in many ways anarchists and libertarians have profoundly different worldviews, we do come peculiarly close to one another in ideological terms from time to time.

I appreciate and strongly agree with TFI's view that our commitment to people in need ought to be personal, rather than political. There is a great deal that could be accomplished if we came together as community members and took personal responsibility for community problems. And there would be a dramatically smaller need for government, which does operate by force and is therefore condemnable.

The catch here, TFI, is that most of us are NOT taking that kind of responsibility. The government picks up where we fail to be responsible for our communities. And we are not isolated, individuated atomatons who have no impact on one another. We are affected by the the behaviors of everyone around us. There MUST be a bottom line... and when we as community members fail to uphold the bottom line, we have a government to step in on our behalf. I don't like it any more than you do.

The way to overcome this problem, TFI, is NOT to try to demolish, downscale, or limit the government. They way to overcome is to usurp traditional governmental responsibilities... to commit ourselves so fully to the service of one another that the government no longer is necessary.

Think about it.

I've long had a fantasy of

Submitted by olyrickm on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 7:11am.

I've long had a fantasy of gathering a many people as possible, hundreds of them, and have us all stand in front of walgreens or some other DRUG store with signs that say, "Say No To Drugs." The hypocrisy of our policies and double standards, etc, are sickening. I agree with the last couple posts regarding how many people would lose their jobs, careers, all sorts of things if drugs were either legalized or decriminalized. Cops, lawyers, prison builders, guards, etc. People make a big deal about the money dealers are making. Check out how much the pharmacutical dealers are making. One months prescription for seroquel, a commonly used atypcial antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder costs around $620. Yes that's $20 per pill. And the side effects can be wicked. I currrently am without insurance to pay for my legalized drugs and just 2 of them, statins for cholesterol control cost $200 a month. All of my prescriptions cost far more than the average pot habit, and I've got side effects much different than munchies to deal with. Part of the issue here with drugs and addiction, illegal and legal is the very way in which we practice health care in our nation. That is a root problem in all of this mess.

Health care

Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 9:39am.

Health care is indeed screwed up in our country.

I wonder what would happen if people came first. People first, instead of profits.

I agree

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 10:39am.

After working in healthcare for a few years it is messed up, and between drug companies and insurance companies it's really overwhelming. Do you really think that uncriminalizing illegal drugs will help the legal drug system though? I think it'd make an even bigger mess personally.

Maybe we could use

Submitted by Meta Hogan on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 1:50pm.

Maybe we could use decriminalization as an opportunity to rethink the health care system. I'd hate to have it be an opportunity for those lazy and opportunistic HMOs to suck at the teat of a vastly expanded medical wefare system. Those people *really* can't handle themselves. :)

They are addicted to the health care dollars,

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:07am.

they can't help themselves. ;)

Treatment on demand

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 7:58am.

with reasonable reimbursement rate to treatment providers should be part of a drug decriminalization and treatment model. It's also a model for health care and a limited and cost effective basic health care system. Maybe you can't get an MRI every time you have a terrible headache, but you can always get an eval by a practitioner when you are running a fever of 101.

Maybe you can't get the most current and expensive statin for cholesterol treatment, but you get an older, cheaper, effective generic treatment. The common thread is a system driven by cost-effective, result-driven thinking. Profits could suffer. Hysterical systems with little focus on cost-effectiveness can produce a much higher profit margin - profit is good, right? Capitalism should be allowed to make a killing, it's a core value. Any profit in building prisons? operating private prison systems?

Prop up the profit model with values about not having to "pay the bill for some other person" and you have our current drug policy.

We shouldn't be paying for

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 9:23am.

We shouldn't be paying for their incarceration, either.

The government should simply leave people alone when they decide to consume any substance.

Care to join us here in the real world?

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:03am.

"We shouldn't be paying for their incarceration, either."

I share your fiscal restraint view on this one generally.

"The government should simply leave people alone when they decide to consume any substance."

Can't actually work that way because even if we (the govt) left people alone when they consume a subtance, we still end up involved with them when they blow 1.4 blood alcohol after they run over our grandkids. We end up involved with people consuming substances when they go nuts and beat the heck out of their spouse or kids (our children and grandchildren?). We end up involved with them when they become thoroughly addicted to meth and start breaking the windows of our cars to steal a cheap radio and leave a mess of yanked wires hanging out of the dash.

Again, as I understand it, these problems of involvement and related tax rates are much less onerous in Antarctica. Take a sweater.

Distinctions

Submitted by chaney on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 3:28pm.

I think there has to be a distinction between marijuana and other drugs when we're talking about legalization. Marijuana is a breed of cannabis. Anyone can grow marijuana without posing a threat to those around them. Since people can grow it on their own, it would become dirt cheap months after it was legalized. It would no longer be a black market commodity, it would become a fixture in gardens. And in my opinion there would be no initial frenzy, because it's already widely available and those who wish to smoke it are, in large part, already doing so.

On the other hand, cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. have to be manufactured. It takes much more know-how to produce these substances than it does to grow a marijuana plant, and for that reason I'm not sure their price would drop as rapidly or as far. I'm not sure what legalization of these substances would accomplish. It seems certain that in the aftermath of such a change, some of those who are already addicted would be tempted to drastically increase their consumption, and there's the potential for a horrific surge in overdoses. Would non-users be more attracted to the substances if they were legal? It's hard to say. Honestly, I don't know where I stand on the legal status of these harder drugs. I personally don't think they should ever have been invented, but they were. They're addictive, potentially lethal, and in meth's case, production itself can be extremely dangerous to those in the vicinity of the producers. I really do not know how to solve the hard drug problem.

However, it's clear to me that marijuana prohibition is detrimental to society. It outlaws a species, which is in itself absolutely ridiculous. It makes criminals out of people who often do not engage in any other criminal activity. It drains money from our law enforcement system without protecting anyone from anything. And it breeds resentment in our community. I remember reading a post by OlyCop where he expressed annoyance at a less-than-warm reception he'd received at a local business. Obviously I can't speak for the people he encountered, but I know that when *I* meet paths with a cop, my first reaction is discomfort or anxiety, because 75% of the time I know that if they looked in my backpack I'd be on my way to court. And I know that most of my friends, not to mention my family, feel the same way. Why should we be alienated from mainstream society in such a way? I honestly don't want to resent the police! But marijuana is part of my culture, just as it was part of my great grandfather's culture, and it's hard not to resent those who wage a culture war against you for no apparent reason.

There is nothing to lose in legalizing marijuana, and much to gain. Olympia would be a much more open, happy, and tight-knit community if it ever came to pass.

edit: Damn lack of linebreaks!

Yes

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 4:06pm.

and I'm sure that the same thing was said by moonshine runners in the south. Another good idea on not feeling that way would be to grow up and stop smoking pot. I have nothing against people that want to go and spend their money on something so silly, but don't try and place the blame elsewhere, it's not society's decision, it is yours.

And the moonshine runners were right.

Submitted by chaney on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 5:22pm.

Not catching your point, buddy. I'm not harming anyone, I'm making a choice for myself. Society made the decision to outlaw a harmless recreational activity, and I'll continue to blame it for that decision and all its consequences.

Right

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 5:38pm.

and you made the decision to smoke it, even though society ( perhaps wrongly ) deemed it illegal. The simplest solution to solve all of these woes you have with being afraid to talk with police etc. would be to simply stop smoking pot. Yet it's society's problem for making that darned law, not yours for choosing to break it.

Patriots like that life,

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 8:27am.

Patriots like that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing, Norm. Some of the patriots are high as kites.

And yes, it is society's problem for making laws because we foot the bill for a law enforcement and incarceration model that is much more expensive and destructive than a sensible decriminalization and treatment model. We pay the bill. (actually, the Chinese do, but our kids and grandkids may have to pay them back some day unless the Federal deficit can be transferred to the Iraqi's as part of our gift of freedom and democracy to them?)

It's all about

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:23am.

a little self-discipline. I've had pot-head after pot-head say, "Man it's not addictive, I can quit anytime I want I just LOVE getting high." so potentially, anyone could up and quit smoking pot. What exactly are you losing by quitting smoking? You lose that high that you can't obtain through other means in life. Self-control, if you want to not be treated like an outcast for being a pot-head making it legal isn't going to change that. Alcohol is legal yet people still frown upon drunks. Cigarettes are legal, but if I get a whiff of your cigarette while walking down the street I'm gonna shoot you a nasty look. FYI I am in NO WAY saying that alcohol is less abused or harmful than pot, I don't think either one of them are good.

No one treats me like an

Submitted by chaney on Mon, 08/14/2006 - 12:17am.

No one treats me like an outcast for smoking, I simply have to live that part of my life discretely due to the law. It's not such a horrible thing that it would influence my decision to smoke or not to smoke, but it does have an effect on our society, which is why I listed it among several of the problems caused by prohibition. The resentment I was talking about was not that directed at marijuana smokers, but that felt by smokers toward law enforcement. And yes, people frown on drunks, but do people frown on social drinkers? Again, distinctions...

What would I lose by quitting? Aside from the same sort of relaxation and winding down that other people find at bars throughout Olympia every night, I'd lose my preferred treatment for nausea, depression, and most importantly, insomnia. Insomnia was my personal enemy from the age of 11 to the age of 16, when I discovered marijuana. Could I quit? I can, and I have. It's not uncommon for people to go several months without smoking for the purpose of lowering their tolerance. And, you know, the insomnia comes right back whenever I quit. Insomnia is one of the symptoms of marijuana withdrawal, but when you get into your third month of not smoking and it's still there, that explanation just doesn't seem very likely. But you're probably right, I should "grow up" and try some of those sleeping pills on television. Surely they aren't addictive...

Ewww

Submitted by Norm on Mon, 08/14/2006 - 9:28am.

I hate insomnia, it doesn't strike me very often but I have a bottle of "simply sleep" made by tylenol sitting by my bed for when it strikes. It claims not to be addictive and I've never had to use it for more than one night in a row. Might try it if you ever decide to give up on pot again.

I'd hardly call pot

Submitted by Phil Owen on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 6:57pm.

I'd hardly call pot harmless, though it seems nuts to me to lock people up for smoking it.

I think I'd be for decriminalizing pot, along with a host of other drugs, though not legalizing it. Drug use/addiction seems to me to warrant either nothing more than the equivalent of a jaywalking ticket, or the offer of treatement.

Specifics on marijuana harm,

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 8:01am.

Specifics on marijuana harm, please?

Marijuana may not have

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:55am.

Marijuana may not have severe physical health effects (cancer, emphysema have been pretty well disproven), but it damn sure kills motivation, drive, and the ability to relate to others. It's like the pill from Alice in Wonderland that makes you small. Except instead of small, pot tends to make people juvenile and immature. It's kind of like the Fountain of Youth, except in terms of emotional rather than physical maturity.

I don't think you can

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:19am.

I don't think you can generalize it, Phil. I think it's a subjective thing, affects one person one way, another person another. I know people that say they become very creative and productive after smoking pot. I also know some of those "couch potato" types. It seems that there are many health benefits to marijuana. Depression, glaucoma on and on. Even some people that fight legalization will admit that they would support medical marijuana in pill form, as long as there is no smoking involved. I would support legalization of marijuana, It's a lot better and less fatal than alcohol or cigarettes are.

I am a social scientist by

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:44am.

I am a social scientist by training. I look for studies and stats. I think there are health issues with MJ - emphysema, maybe cancer, but since tobacco is legal with the same or worse health issues, that doesn't go very far with me.

Motivation - yes, I think you are right. I think motivation and drive fall off with chronic use, but then Adolph Hitler had plenty of motivation and drive, and I think I would have preferred he smoke some ganja and tamp it down a bit.

Chronic use of MJ is probably not all that compatible with being a productive member of society as it is currently structured, but I am not certain that the current structure of society or productivity are inherent goods that should be given a free pass.

I suspect TFI and I share this idea that people ought to be free to make what they want of themselves, to find meaning in their lives in their own ways. If a person wants to become a Rastafarian and they and their family can work out the details, it's ok with me.

"Marijuana may not have

Submitted by Jade on Sun, 08/13/2006 - 8:51pm.

"Marijuana may not have severe physical health effects (cancer, emphysema have been pretty well disproven), but it damn sure kills motivation, drive, and the ability to relate to others."

So do video games, Phil. Not everything that is unpleasant or unhealthy should be illegal.

Jade

(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)

I would agree

Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 7:25pm.

Pot is hardly harmless. But with that said, in 20 years of going to DV calls, I have never gone to a DV where the victim/suspect were stoned on MJ only. Now alcohol, thats a different matter, probably most if not nearly all DV's have a level of alcohol intoxication.

And I think

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 1:11am.

That's why a lot of people are confused about government policy on narcotics. It just doesn't make sense any way you look at it.

Narcotics?

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 8:21am.

The devil is in the details. I don't think marijuana fits in to the narcotic class, I think it's more a hypnotic - euphoric. And the classes themselves are political. It's best to stick to a specific substance and evaluate its specific impact. Otherwise we could discuss alcohol as a class that includes lethal versions as if that substance had much in common with my pint of nitro-charged Terminator. Not really the same thing.

Specifics on marijuana harm

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 8:04am.

Specifics on marijuana harm please? I appreciate your observations regarding MJ vs. Alcohol in DV.

I am on the board of local dv and sexual assault agency, the legal drug - alcohol - looks like a much bigger problem with our client population than some of the illegal ones from what I can see.

Random thought...

Submitted by OperaGirl on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 9:54am.

I had a friend tell me once that he just played guitar *so* much better high and all I could think was..."no, sweetie - you just *think* you do because you're high!" Poor guy. lol

Yeah

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 10:23am.

It's amazing how people's perceptions change while high.

It's amazing what people

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 11:46am.

It's amazing what people experience when the doors of perception are open.

"It's amazing what people

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 12:05pm.

"It's amazing what people experience when the doors of perception are open."

What in the heavens do you mean by that?

I mean, look, I'm not exactly naive on this issue. I was a teenager once. I remember dropping acid at the age of 16... I thought I was coming up with ALL SORTS of brilliant new ideas. None of them made any sense to the people around me, and when I sobered up they didn't make any sense to me either. Were my "doors of perception opened", only to be closed after sobering up... or was I just stoned stupid?

This is not some lofty philosophical question. We live in a SHARED reality. Dude wasn't better at guitar when he was stoned (he probably would have been embarrased if he had recorded himself), and I wasn't particularly brilliant on acid either. Drugs don't open "new realities" or the "doors of perception"; drugs put people OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.

Chill out, Dr. Falwell!

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 12:17pm.

Chill out, Dr. Falwell!

Are you comparing me with

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 12:22pm.

Are you comparing me with Jerry Falwell, Rob?!

Forgive me if I get a little impassioned about this, but there's a whole lot of inspiration and talent that goes down the drain as a result of drug use... even the so-called "benign" drugs.

I'm joking, of course

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 1:40pm.

I think you know I've seen the potential that can be wasted because of drugs. I just have a really hard time putting pot in the same category as meth and heroine. There are definetly extreme cases of folks who do nothing with their time and just smoke pot, but that is a stereotype and again, extreme. I've known, as I'm sure you have too, many pot users who go to work everyday and are highly successful at whatever they do. Some of I've known smoke every night, it relaxes them and allows them to rest better for the next day of work.

I agree with everything you said, except when it comes to pot. Pot is useful, it has proven medical benefits and few (even cancer has been pretty much ruled out recently) negatives. The reasons it has been vilified so much in American culture are here, here, and here.

I've been looking into drug companies lately, and my overall opinion is that they need to be reeled in a bit. For a little perspective on big pharma tricks and for a better understanding of drug pricing, read this New Yorker piece by Malcolm Gladwell.

I like the way you put that

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 1:59pm.

and I'm forced to agree, I've known many people that smoke pot, even daily, that function within society, I've also seen the opposite, but is that a personal choice, or an affect of the drug? I'm not sure. I don't think pot and meth or heroine should be classified in the same category, but there are those few that abuse pot and it rules their entire life ( I have a brother and an uncle who fall into this category ) So I'll pose this question, who will get to regulate it in terms of employment? Government or businesses? I have nothing against someone wanting to get high provided they do it in their own home and don't do anything terribly important afterward, but I'd rather not be on the freeway with a truck driver who's smoking dope while driving and have him being impaired and it being ok because it's legal now. How about a police officer? Firefighter? Doctor? Judge? Jury? Marijuana does influence the decisions of some people, so if you would allow those professions to do this, would you also allow them to drink while on the job? How about meth if they are tired? This is a very gray area and once we step into this it's going to be rough stepping out.

I think you would need the

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 5:40pm.

I think you would need the same regulations as alcohol. No driving operating, equipment, coming to work etc, while under the influence. It works fairly well for alcohol, I think it would for pot as well.

n/m

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 5:41pm.

n/m

We have apparently hit a hot button topic

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 1:55pm.

for you, Phil. Again, I am a social scientist by training. Generalizing your experience or view regarding use of psychoactive chemicals doesn't carry much weight with me even if you strongly believe you know something to be true.

Doors of perception - a reference to Huxley, of course. For Huxley, questions of the transcendent thought and spirituality were lofty philosophical issues I think.

What I pick up here is a sense of "normie" (not about you, Norm) thinking. A sense that any of can know for certain whether Opera Girl's friend's guitar playing was "better." Like we know what he was experiencing. Maybe a freedom to play guitar as his creative experience that may have been much more fulfilling to him when he was high than otherwise. For those of you who are sure of tune, time and key, please spend a few hours with Thelonius Monk.

Humberto Maturana's work may help with a larger view of objectivity.

Other studies of interest: all of John Lilly's work.

And I think what the frog's eye tells the frog's brain comes into play.

You want to explore inner space through meditation or medication, it's ok with me. I won't demean it. You get in trouble with addiction or develop health issues related to drug use, I want you to be able to access treatment easily instead of being incarcerated.

If I had to choose between an afternoon with a chemically altered Dr. Leary or a clean and sober Dr. Falwell, that would be an easy choice for me.

While I certainly agree with

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 2:44pm.

While I certainly agree with you that a stoned Dr. Leary would be a hell of a lot more entertaining (and probably less offensive) than a sober Jerry Falwell.... what's up with those websites you referenced???

"Interstellar telepathic communication"? Sensory depravation experiments while on LSD by a buddy of Babba Ram Das'? Links to alien/freemason/moonlanding conspiracy theories? I think even Leary would have a tough time coming up with stuff this wacko. (Or maybe I'm just a "normie"...)

Not that the nature of reality shouldn't be explored. The Humberto page you referenced mentioned constructivism, and the notion that "reality" is a "consensual communal construction", which are useful ideas. There is a difference between concrete reality (if you are walking through the woods and a bear knocks off your head, are you dead?... not hard to answer), and constructed reality which is rooted in language (the coke bottle in "The Gods Must Be Crazy", what REALLY is it?... a little more difficult to answer).

Drug use is hardly the way to explore the nature of reality, however... using LSD to open up "new realities" etc. is liable to lead you down the path that produces fluffy hippie-dippy alien/freemason conspiracies to control the mind of Baba Ram Das via interstellar telepathy. Follow my "drift"?

lol

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 3:15pm.

Phil, that was the best read I've had in quite a long time.

A man sees what he wants to

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 4:02pm.

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. That's the Paul Simon lyrical version of the frog's eye and brain maturana/lettvin studies. Maturana's version says the frog'e eye has developed/evolved to filter reality to show the frog's brain visual input most useful to frog survival, but very seriously filtered and incomplete visual input. Is it possible that a human brain, eye, heart have evolved to tell us the most useful, but incomplete information about the world around us?

Maturana, Lettvin, Leary, Lilly, Ram Dass, Huxley - these are not lightweights. All world-class serious phd folks who at one time or another did some really serious work. Don't get distracted by the fluff if you are really interested in knowing their work. If you aren't really interested, the fluff is entertaining and/or will enable you to walk away shaking your head. Don't shake it the head real hard, that also alters reality and perception.

Lots of folks, including me, follow a path of spirituality and faith that is transcendent, does not lend itself to empirical evaluation. This stuff is not as measurable as determining if a being is dead after being mauled by another being. Regardless of our individual sensory filters, most of could reach a conclusion and agreement about life and death in the aftermath of a mauling.

It's less certain that we could agree about the nature of reality, the effect of the observer on observed reality, whether we could know for certain if Opera Girl's friend was a better guitar player stoned than otherwise. We can know Opera Girl's opinion, we can have our own opinion, but this is like Monk's piano playing, the easy conclusion is that he didn't know how to play, was clumsy, played out of key. His scoring and composing are strong evidence that he did know how to play, understood what we are all used to hearing, he just wasn't interested in playing the kind of thing we are used to hearing?

Maybe that's a lack of motivation, too much drug ingestion, a musical presentation of schizophrenia, maybe it's musical genius. We all get to have an opinion if we want to weigh in. We can project our own reality on it all, say he's a moron, or stoned stupid, etc.

I think reality is almost more complicated than we would like to admit or deal with. If it was simple and demonstrable, we could all sign on with TFI, we wouldn't have to pay for other's people's choices.
We would be able to explain to a person like Rachel Corrie that it makes no sense to get involved in the politics of a country on the other side of the planet, she might be made to understand that she can't change things there. Saving that world makes as little sense as trying to take peyote and see God. We all might be made to understand that we all just have to stop using illegal drugs through our self-control per Norm. We could all just be sensible. I think that is the world that chilled Huxley. Lots of folks love that world. They wave the flag, they sell insurance, I wish them well. My eyes don't always see what their eyes see. My eyes don't always tell my brain what their eyes tell their brains. It can make communication a little difficult. No chemicals ingested.

Maturana, et al

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 4:39pm.

were working on something much more elemental than linguistically constructed reality, ala the coke bottle. Maturana started from anatomy, trying to figure out how a frog could see a fly moving horizontally across the frog's field of vision with great acuity, but could not detect a fly moving vertically across the frog's field of vision. There was no question that a fly was moving vertically through the frog's field of vision, Maturana set that up, but the frog's eye did not see a fly working in this motion, the eye had actually evolved to filter out the kind of data that was not useful to a frog survival - flies move horizontally in the frog's version of reality, that is the visual cue most useful to frog survival - look for flies.

If you could speak to frogs, have the fly move up and down in front of them, and talk to them about why they can't see the fly, they would tell you because the fly is not there. They can't see it. They would be as certain that there is no fly as TFI is certain that he shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices. A reality that you can't see is just a complete frustration and nuisance. It's craziness when other beings say what, you can't see the fly going up and down in front of you?

Aka blind spot? Nothing really exists in a blind spot, right? Even if we could agree on linguistic construction of the reality and say, well let's call that any and every object in a blindspot: coke bottle, that's still just a linguistic construct, there really is nothing in a blind spot. A blind spot is like a vacuum. Just ask a frog.

Particle physics anyone?

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 5:03pm.

Probably best to stick with stuff that we can test like the effect of mass on the space-time continuum. The demonstrable fact that mass/weight bend and distort time. That's so much easier to accept than legalization of illegal drugs or burning flags.

Thanks for all the info, it

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 08/12/2006 - 7:24pm.

Thanks for all the info, it sounds very interesting and you are obviously well educated in this arena.

There is, however, (as you mentioned earlier) a difference between fluff and good science. The stuff that says, "Wow, man, that guy looks like he's really diggin' that awful sounding stuff he's playing on the guitar... he must be in a really great alternate universe/reality/plane/realm/ether... oh, hey, pass the bong..." is fluff.

Research on the instincts of a frog is probably not fluff.

There is a difference.

Be careful, Phil

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 08/13/2006 - 1:31am.

You're treading very close to Sam Harris' argument from The End of Faith: fluff (in his eyes = religion) vs. good science. The only difference Harris would point out between what Mike linked to and mainstream religion is that one is considered fluff and one is considered equal to science (even though there is as much, or little, hard evidence to prove either).

I'm not trying to stir up the religion debate again, it tires me, I just wanted to make that observation. Don't respond to this comment. Pretend it never happened.

Long ago I got used to the

Submitted by Mike on Sun, 08/13/2006 - 6:33am.

Long ago I got used to the fact that others didn't understand what I was saying, or sometimes worse, they misunderstand what I am saying. Looking for a needle in a haystack requires that you look for the needle. You probably won't find the needle if you continue to say, Good God, look at all this hay.
Morons at ER and stoners playing guitar both get my sympathy for their plight and how they are seen and treated. On multiple levels, both as representatives of throw-away people and on the outside chance they represent the needle in the haystack. Van Gogh comes to mind.

I have a family member whose brain chemistry (and probably brain structure) is not standard. It's not an issue of drug use, though that's an overlay now. The ER folks are generally kind to him even though I am sure some of them think he's a moron. I have never heard him play guitar, stoned or otherwise. I sometimes get inklings of the reality that his brain is perceiving and processing when we talk. I can't say for sure if his reality - extra voices etc - or mine is correct. Mine is easier.

Van Gogh was fortunate to have a brother who loved and supported him during a life when he must have been seen as a moron or worse by lots of folks around him. I believe he sold one painting in his lifetime. Not much contemporaneous appreciation. Sad, lonely, a moron, a throw-away person in his time. As a genius, moron, and throw-away person, he speaks to me for all of that population.

I think Lilly was a needle in the haystack. Here's a better website about him. I haven't read anything by him in thirty years. He was a guy I would have applied to study with if I had pursued a phd. That was a long time ago.

You still don't get the

Submitted by Mike on Mon, 08/14/2006 - 8:08am.

You still don't get the Maturana work, Phil. It's not about frog instincts, it's about frog perception - hence the reference to the doors of perception - and Maturana's work is elemental to understanding the work of a lot of other really serious scientists - who happen to use LSD and other hallucinogens in rigorous scientific ways.

The frog's eye, the nerve calls at its retina (if frogs have retinas - I am not a anatomist/physiologist like Maturana and disecting frogs makes me ill), have developed, probably through natural selection (apologies to the creationists out there) to tell the frog's brain only part of the visual reality in front of the frog. Since flies as frog "happy meals" most commonly present flying horizontally before a frog, the frog's eye has stopped seeing flies moving vertically in front of frogs.

There may be some residual ability to detect vertical motion, so you hand a frog a bong, scramble it's neurological function a bit and you may for a short period of time have a frog who sees what few other frogs ever see - a fly moving vertically. The frog tells the other frogs about it, they all laugh and say "what are you smoking?" then the chemically altered frog whips out its tongue and brings back a fly no other frog could see. The other frogs scratch their head. Some start rigorous scientific studies on perception, others start investigation moon-landing conspiracies. My money is on the scientifically rigorous frogs, but I am aware of my perceptual limitations. I can't see radio waves, but I still turn on the radio.

One of the points is that drug use is not a single thing - drug abuse, drug addiction. It is many things - scientific study of perception, spiritual search for God, treatment for insomnia, relaxation. Our reaction and public policy to drug use would be more effective if the distinctions are recognized. I strongly support a more nuanced public policy toward drugs - some processes (making meth in your kid's bedroom, driving drunk, and others) should be illegal because of the risk they pose to others. Maybe some drugs should be banned (when has prohibition worked?). Decriminalization would greatly reduce the profit and dangerous trade in banned substances and would provide the funding to provide treatment on demand, no questions asked. You want to kick, come on in. You want to stay home or sit in the park, smoke, play terrible guitar or search for things that our eyes won't tell us about, go ahead. You want to treat nausea, glaucoma, insomnia with mj you grow in your backyard? Why not?

Productivity is over-rated imho. Clean and sober is great if you have had a serious addiction problem that has wrecked your life. If you don't have, never had a serious addiction problem, you need clean and sober like a fish needs a bicycle.

I am sorry to skewer sacred cows, but that's what I believe. No chemicals ingested...

Well, a bunch of caffeine maybe.

Online users

Comment viewing options