5 ms·

Not every drug is addictive. Marijuana isn't, not physiologically speaking. Furthermore a very high majority of users do not become dependent on the most addic

Not every drug is addictive. Marijuana isn't, not physiologically speaking. Furthermore a very high majority of users do not become dependent on the most addictive drugs such as heroin [1]. It's pretty simple to me - The war on drugs is not really a war on drugs, it's a war on people. People like drugs and alcohol just like every animal [2]. It's totally natural. However, certain other people in power have taken it as an opportunity to exact control over the entire world. With drugs being illegal - the feds get to take your money and property, the CIA gets secret money since they secretly control the entire drug trade, the DEA gets your tax money, the police get to invade your privacy and jail you more easily and on and on.... With legal drugs, none of that is possible. What other possible activity could be outlawed which would be as profitable? [1] https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin [2] http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/13791/20150331/natures-junkies-drugs-alcohol-why-animals-use.htm http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/13791/20150331/natur...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Not every drug is addictive. Marijuana isn't, not physiologically speaking. The idea that the qualification "physiologically speaking" actually refers to anything other than an imaginary distinction (as compared to the usual alternative, "psychologically") implicitly requires that there is some element of psychology that is not an effect of the physical configuration of the body (brain or otherwise).
- Shorel 10y ago
  Is something with a very bad taste addictive? Tasting it clearly generates sensations in the brain that can be interpreted to be an effect of the physical configuration of the body. And yet it's not possible for such a food to make someone an addict to it. Your argument doesn't seem convincing to me.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Is something with a very bad taste addictive? I'm sure something with a very bad taste is addictive, but that's neither here nor there. > Tasting it clearly generates sensations in the brain that can be interpreted to be an effect of the physical configuration of the body. > And yet it's not possible for such a food to make someone an addict to it. You seem to be thinking that I made an argument that was equivalent to "every effect on the physical configuration of the body must produce addiction" rather than one equivalent to "in the absence of some non-physical process driving psychology, every psychological effect, including psychological addictions that are often characterized as 'not-physiological', must, in fact, have a physiological basis." > Your argument doesn't seem convincing to me. You seem to have a very bizarre idea of what my argument is that doesn't seem closely attached to anything I actually wrote.
  - dTal 10y ago
    >Is something with a very bad taste addictive? Yeah, nicotine tastes horribly bitter.
rwmj 10y ago
> People like drugs and alcohol just like every animal [2]. It's totally natural. However, certain other people in power have taken it as an opportunity to exact control over the entire world. The trouble with these theories (I nearly said "conspiracy theories"), is the evidence doesn't fit the theory. If there's a secret cabal of "certain people" deciding this stuff, who are they? Where are they? A more plausible explanation is to take politicians at their word. They really do thing "drugs" are "bad", that only bad people do drugs, and won't someone think of the children? And they've not really thought about the topic beyond that. There are cabals, like the alcohol industry which infamously funded an anti-ecstasy campaign in the UK, but they are not hidden.
- joesmo 10y ago
  There's no secret cabal. These are the assholes and idiots the idiot masses elect. If they really do think that drugs are bad and only bad people do them, they're even dumber than I thought, but I don't think they do. They think, this is how I can repay the police for their donations, the CIA/DEA/NSA (or equivalents), and most of all myself. Basically, they are fine with hurting and killing others to profit themselves. Even when presented with clear evidence, these scumbags will never admit they are wrong just like the scumbag cops mentioned in this article. We have legalized and decriminalized drugs in enough countries and states that thinking the above not only goes against over a hundred years of experience with addictive substances, but goes against observable reality (facts) in various places over the last 40++ years. These people are so far gone, they're delusional. It's these drug warriors that deserve to spend the rest of their lives in jail, or like the main police man in this story, suffering from PTSD.
- filoeleven 10y ago
  > If there's a secret cabal of "certain people" deciding this stuff, who are they? Where are they? One of Nixon's aides flat out admitted, decades after the fact, that the war on drugs, especially marijuana, was instituted (or rather, ramped up) in order to marginalize blacks and hippies.
  - rwmj 10y ago
tajen 10y ago
However, there is social pressure. The social pressure that makes that given your social level and how smart you are, you are much more akin to fall into drugs (tobacco, alcohol) if it's allowed. Take it this way: It's incredibly hard, today, in France, to explain someone smoking at a bar outdoors that he's reducing your life expectancy. It's incredibly hard to find bars to go to. It's incredibly hard in my city (Lyon), to walk on the sidewalk and avoid smokers. It's impossible to run around our park without being under the smoke of smokers - and that's the only place where asthmatists can go running. Smokers don't even think of smoking as harmful in practice, even if they admit it in theory. While I'm unhappy with the war on drugs and the class domination it represents (jailing the poorer and the political opponents), I'm incredibly happy that I don't have to explain my friends that they can't come to work with drugs or that we don't have to explain children that drugs are legal but shouldn't be bought. The law makes things clear: It's forbidden because it's bad. And I'm happy that I'm not proposed drugs during cocktails, while I'm insistently proposed cigarettes and alcohol.
- munificent 10y ago
  Smoking is legal in the US, but smoking in bars and restaurants is illegal in many places now. I think that strikes a good balance between giving smokers the freedom to smoke while giving non-smokers the freedom to inhale clean air in most places. I can't tell you how wonderful it was to move from a city that allowed smoking in bars to one that didn't. I used to play in a band and coming home from every show reeking of smoke was awful. The first time I went out in my new city and came home not needing a shower was amazing.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Smoking is legal in the US, but smoking in bars and restaurants is illegal in many places now. I think that strikes a good balance between giving smokers the freedom to smoke while giving non-smokers the freedom to inhale clean air in most places. Note that in most places, those bans aren't justified primarily on protection of non-smoking customers, but were instead removal of exception in existing workplace smoking bans that had excluded bars and restaurants, to protect people working in those places.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Not every drug is addictive. Marijuana isn't, not physiologically speaking. The idea that the qualification "physiologically speaking" actually refers to anything other than an imaginary distinction (as compared to the usual alternative, "psychologically") implicitly requires that there is some element of psychology that is not an effect of the physical configuration of the body (brain or otherwise).

Shorel 10y ago
Is something with a very bad taste addictive? Tasting it clearly generates sensations in the brain that can be interpreted to be an effect of the physical configuration of the body. And yet it's not possible for such a food to make someone an addict to it. Your argument doesn't seem convincing to me.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Is something with a very bad taste addictive? I'm sure something with a very bad taste is addictive, but that's neither here nor there. > Tasting it clearly generates sensations in the brain that can be interpreted to be an effect of the physical configuration of the body. > And yet it's not possible for such a food to make someone an addict to it. You seem to be thinking that I made an argument that was equivalent to "every effect on the physical configuration of the body must produce addiction" rather than one equivalent to "in the absence of some non-physical process driving psychology, every psychological effect, including psychological addictions that are often characterized as 'not-physiological', must, in fact, have a physiological basis." > Your argument doesn't seem convincing to me. You seem to have a very bizarre idea of what my argument is that doesn't seem closely attached to anything I actually wrote.
- dTal 10y ago
  >Is something with a very bad taste addictive? Yeah, nicotine tastes horribly bitter.

rwmj 10y ago

> People like drugs and alcohol just like every animal [2]. It's totally natural. However, certain other people in power have taken it as an opportunity to exact control over the entire world. The trouble with these theories (I nearly said "conspiracy theories"), is the evidence doesn't fit the theory. If there's a secret cabal of "certain people" deciding this stuff, who are they? Where are they? A more plausible explanation is to take politicians at their word. They really do thing "drugs" are "bad", that only bad people do drugs, and won't someone think of the children? And they've not really thought about the topic beyond that. There are cabals, like the alcohol industry which infamously funded an anti-ecstasy campaign in the UK, but they are not hidden.

joesmo 10y ago
There's no secret cabal. These are the assholes and idiots the idiot masses elect. If they really do think that drugs are bad and only bad people do them, they're even dumber than I thought, but I don't think they do. They think, this is how I can repay the police for their donations, the CIA/DEA/NSA (or equivalents), and most of all myself. Basically, they are fine with hurting and killing others to profit themselves. Even when presented with clear evidence, these scumbags will never admit they are wrong just like the scumbag cops mentioned in this article. We have legalized and decriminalized drugs in enough countries and states that thinking the above not only goes against over a hundred years of experience with addictive substances, but goes against observable reality (facts) in various places over the last 40++ years. These people are so far gone, they're delusional. It's these drug warriors that deserve to spend the rest of their lives in jail, or like the main police man in this story, suffering from PTSD.
filoeleven 10y ago
> If there's a secret cabal of "certain people" deciding this stuff, who are they? Where are they? One of Nixon's aides flat out admitted, decades after the fact, that the war on drugs, especially marijuana, was instituted (or rather, ramped up) in order to marginalize blacks and hippies.
- rwmj 10y ago

tajen 10y ago

However, there is social pressure. The social pressure that makes that given your social level and how smart you are, you are much more akin to fall into drugs (tobacco, alcohol) if it's allowed. Take it this way: It's incredibly hard, today, in France, to explain someone smoking at a bar outdoors that he's reducing your life expectancy. It's incredibly hard to find bars to go to. It's incredibly hard in my city (Lyon), to walk on the sidewalk and avoid smokers. It's impossible to run around our park without being under the smoke of smokers - and that's the only place where asthmatists can go running. Smokers don't even think of smoking as harmful in practice, even if they admit it in theory. While I'm unhappy with the war on drugs and the class domination it represents (jailing the poorer and the political opponents), I'm incredibly happy that I don't have to explain my friends that they can't come to work with drugs or that we don't have to explain children that drugs are legal but shouldn't be bought. The law makes things clear: It's forbidden because it's bad. And I'm happy that I'm not proposed drugs during cocktails, while I'm insistently proposed cigarettes and alcohol.

munificent 10y ago
Smoking is legal in the US, but smoking in bars and restaurants is illegal in many places now. I think that strikes a good balance between giving smokers the freedom to smoke while giving non-smokers the freedom to inhale clean air in most places. I can't tell you how wonderful it was to move from a city that allowed smoking in bars to one that didn't. I used to play in a band and coming home from every show reeking of smoke was awful. The first time I went out in my new city and came home not needing a shower was amazing.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Smoking is legal in the US, but smoking in bars and restaurants is illegal in many places now. I think that strikes a good balance between giving smokers the freedom to smoke while giving non-smokers the freedom to inhale clean air in most places. Note that in most places, those bans aren't justified primarily on protection of non-smoking customers, but were instead removal of exception in existing workplace smoking bans that had excluded bars and restaurants, to protect people working in those places.