There was a time when I was virulently anti-drug.
I felt drugs, including grass, had contributed to my descent into deep depression in my late teens and early 20's. At least, they had kicked the whole episode off -- perhaps I was genetically inclined, it seems to run in my family -- but messing with drugs when I was 17 years old turned out to be a pretty bad idea for me.
Even though it was a very short period of time, a summer really, I really went overboard for those few months.
I've mellowed over the years. I've seen that it doesn't affect everyone the same way. It's been 40 years since I last did it.
I never really even got along with grass, and after I had a few bad trips, all experiences turned bad. There are a few good memories of some early trips, and some lazy afternoons on the couch. Even nicer, some mind expanding times out in the woods or by the river.
But mostly, me and drugs just didn't get along.
The first time I heard it proposed that we legalized drugs, I thought it was ridiculous. I felt all exposure was bad and would only lead to worse.
But, I've come around to thinking that the "war" on drugs has failed. If it's easier to get drugs today, and they're cheaper, and stronger, then something has gone very very wrong.
I do happen to believe that grass is a "gateway" drug. But why? Because it's a conduit to your friendly neighborhood dealers and drug houses and a milieu that is infested with harder drugs.
Perhaps a safe clean place to buy grass wouldn't be such a bad idea.
More money for treatment and less for incarceration would also seem a no brainer.
They'll have to deal with age issues, and driving while impaired -- but that already happening.
Like I said, I never thought I'd come around to this solution, but I think the evidence is in.
So reluctantly and with trepidation, I'm venturing the opinion:
It's time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
... and I thought I'd never agree.
Yeah the war on drugs has obviously failed. Drugs are prevalent. Education on drugs is not, but propaganda is.
Making drugs illegal in the U.S. corrupts adjacent nations that don't share our same laws, or have a less stable policing government (e.g. Mexico). Our laws directly influence neighboring countries, which those countries in turn directly influence us, and nearly nullify our efforts. At the very least it makes us spend a lot of capital trying to combat our own measures.
Our money would be better spent on unbiased education about drugs, or improving the quality and welfare of our citizens lives. Legalizing drugs disempowers the criminals and empowers us. Money is saved.
Psychoactive drugs like marijuana do different things to different people. And I'm guessing that it did play a role in your depression as it did mine. On the flip side, ecstasy lifted my depression. I heartily recommend at least a one time use of it to anyone suffering from depression. The turnaround effect is very pronounced and long term with very little and typically no adverse side effects.
Marijuana typically is a gateway drug, because of the misinformation against it. Schools teach you that for the most part, drugs are bad. When a kid experiments with marijuana and find out that it isn't so bad after all, they then doubt the rest of their education on the other drugs. And that is where they make their mistake.
Drugs are not equal.
Want to see it go down? Go after the users as well as the dealers.
If we knew the pain caused by alcohol, would we have legalized it? We certainly know the pain caused by druggers.
Carl: "If we knew the pain caused by alcohol, would we have legalized it?"
First, alcohol has been part of human culture and society for tens of thousands of years. It's probably older than law itself. So to talk about not "legalizing" it is silly.
Second, millions of people drink alcohol in moderation without harming themselves or others. There's even a sizable body of evidence that moderate drinking has health benefits. Does it make sense to deprive everybody of alcohol because a minority can't (or refuse to) handle it properly?
Finally, our experience with the Volstead Act (Prohibition) shows that when you try to illegalize something that a great many people enjoy and that is deeply ingrained in the culture, the result is disaster. As has been the case with the prohibition of marijuana.
I don't believe we should legalize powerfully addictive "hard" drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth, but the prohibition of marijuana is futile and results in an enormous waste of law enforcement and penal resources.
Leitmotiv: "On the flip side, ecstasy lifted my depression."
Ah, so THAT's the secret of enjoying life in Bend! (Just kidding.)
Is there actual evidence that marijuana is a a gateway drug? Hard, concrete evidence? I've known a good many pot users over the past 35 years of my adult life and not a single one of them went on to heroin or any of the other completely debilitating substances around, that I know of. Many of them are pillars in their community, with careers, healthy relationships, and responsibilities. Just like I've known many drinkers who are pillars in their communities, with careers, relationships, and who also take care of their responsibilities.
I'd like to know what the evidence is to support the theory that marijuana is a gateway drug to the hard stuff. Based on my observations, it is not, and it is high time to legalize it.
I get that some people cannot handle drugs or alcohol in moderation. But they are not representative of the millions who imbibe responsibly.
Oh, yes, that pun was intended. :)
I think it might be a gateway to psychodelics, which I think can be pretty harmful if not done properly.
Miller, coincidentally I lived in Seattle at that time... so make of that what you will!
The whole gateway thing is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
True, most heroin addicts probably started with marijuana (or beer and cigarettes). But that does not mean beer drinkers and pot smokers in general risk becoming heroin addicts.
I've had this discussion about marijuana (which I don't use) with folks in the "authority" business, and they have no counter to being called on the logical fallacy. It just ends up coming down to "I don't like it; it shouldn't be allowed." That don't fly in the land of the free and the home of the brave...
Thousands of lives and billions of dollars have been squandered on this fundamentally flawed approach. It's way PAST time to end marijuana prohibition.
Jim
"Miller, coincidentally I lived in Seattle at that time"
Yeah, that'll depress anybody.
I'm not so sure. All my friends in high school started with grass, some of us tried psychodelics, others went on to do cocaine and speed.
So...from personal experience, it really is a gateway drug.
I spent a few years working at the National Center for Toxicological Research. There were a number of experiments conducted on various illegal drugs, including marijuana.
There are certainly health effects. For example:
Smoking marijuana can lead to symptoms of airway obstruction as well as squamous metaplasia. Clinical manifestations of pathophysiology due to marijuana smoking are now being reported. These include: long-term impairment of memory in adolescents; prolonged impairment of psychomotor performance; a sixfold increase in the incidence of schizophrenia; cancer of mouth, jaw, tongue and lung in 19-30 year olds; fetotoxicity; and non-lymphoblastic leukemia in children of marijuana-smoking mothers.
Just as in cigarette smoke there are a number of toxic components in marijuana smoke. One reason why there is not as much focus is that the amount smoked is less then the corresponding consumption for cigarette smokers.
In many ways one can consider that while the effects of marijuana is probably not any worse than the negative effects of smoking cigarettes or the consumption of alcohol. It does contain the negative elements of both.
The biggest issue is that unlike alcohol where impairment is related to the amount of consumption, measured impairment of behavior in activities such as driving starts almost immediately with any consumption. There is really not a "safe" dose and after any consumption impairment only goes away with time as blood levels drop. I will have to see if I can dig up a copy of the study were we ran tests on reduction of response times related to consumption and blood levels of active components.
The long term impacts such as memory and motor skill impacts are clearly related to age with minors being more severely impacted then those that start at an older age.
O.K., RDC,
You've changed my mind again.
Then again, everything is bad for you.
Yeah, floating the river can be hazardous for you too. Or climbing a mountain. Bungie jumping, etc.
"Yeah, floating the river can be hazardous for you too. Or climbing a mountain. Bungie jumping, etc."
This brings up something I've always wondered about: When somebody gets killed climbing a mountain or bungee jumping or back-country skiing or whatever, the standard consolatory comment is: "He died doing what he loved."
But when a heroin addict (for example) dies of an overdose, we never hear that "he died doing what he loved."
Why is that?
"the effects of marijuana is probably not any worse than the negative effects of smoking cigarettes or the consumption of alcohol."
For a healthy person there are no negative effects from consuming alcohol in moderation, and considerable evidence of positive effects (e.g., raising HDL). On the other hand there's nothing positive to be said for cigarettes.
"All my friends in high school started with grass, some of us tried psychodelics, others went on to do cocaine and speed."
Didn't some of them not go on to anything?
I smoked weed in college and for a few years after. Tried cocaine once, didn't like it. Never did any other hard drugs or psychedelics. I believe many former (and present) pot smokers are like me, maybe even the majority.
Post a Comment