8 ms·

> How is drug usage a "medical" problem? Because it's the ingestion of mind-altering substances to achieve a certain goal. Most often this goal is inebriation

by ggwicz 15y ago

> How is drug usage a "medical" problem? Because it's the ingestion of mind-altering substances to achieve a certain goal. Most often this goal is inebriation for entertainment purposes, some times (especially in indigenous cultures) it's a spiritual goal. > It's a personal choice. Sure, many times it is. But I think more often than you'd realize it's less of a choice and more of a predisposition. I mean, if some people are born with allergies or giant feet or different colored eyes, would it be too crazy to assume that some people are more easily addicted to drugs? > Most addicts aren't born addicted and they make the choice to pick up that first joint. Just real quick, I think you mean joint as in marijuana joint. Marijuana is completely non-addictive physically, in any circumstance. Nor does it kill brain cells, etc. These are remnants of the hilarious Reefer Madness nonsense that the US unfortunately took part in. > I don't want to make it easier to be a drug addict in this country. [...] Then make drugs further decriminalized. Marijuana, for example, is not a gateway drug. Drug dealers are gateway drugs. Every drug dealer that I know, except one, doesn't just deal pot. They've got cocaine, saliva, mushrooms, ecstasy, et cetera et cetera. So instead of being able to just go to a safe environment and get some harmless little green stuff, many drug laws force benign drug-users to be around shady, scummy people with lots of other shady, scummy drugs on them. > [...] Especially at my expense. See the above comment, and recognize that your hard-earned tax dollars are being brilliantly spent on DEA sweeps of Marijuana dispensaries in California, for example; countless arrests are made and resources used over completely benign drugs. Massive, massive wars are being waged around the world that suck money into them faster than a black hole. I'm not a socialist myself and would agree that Person A having Person B take money from Person C to pay for his/her decisions is almost laughably dumb; but there are far, FAR more money-sucking endeavors in the US than drug addiction care/treatment. I'd take a socialistic addiction treatment plan over 3 million+ Dept. of Defense employees (that we know about), 216,000 "Department of Homeland Security" employees, massive military expenditures, and who-knows-how-many-millions of dollars spent annually "fighting" marijuana and other drugs. Just my two cents. Sorry for the long post guys.

paulhauggis 15y ago
"Because it's the ingestion of mind-altering substances to achieve a certain goal. Most often this goal is inebriation for entertainment purposes, some times (especially in indigenous cultures) it's a spiritual goal." A "medical" problem to me is having cancer or a disease. Something you can't stop. If you don't ever ingest illegal drugs, you will never becom an addict of them (funny how that works). " I mean, if some people are born with allergies or giant feet or different colored eyes, would it be too crazy to assume that some people are more easily addicted to drugs?" Some people have addictive personalities. But some drugs actually change brain chemistry and are physically addictive. "Just real quick, I think you mean joint as in marijuana joint. Marijuana is completely non-addictive physically, in any circumstance. Nor does it kill brain cells, etc. These are remnants of the hilarious Reefer Madness nonsense that the US unfortunately took part in." ugh. I never said it was physically addictive. However, I will just let you keep believing it doesn't kill brain cells . I know otherwise. "Then make drugs further decriminalized. Marijuana, for example, is not a gateway drug. Drug dealers are gateway drugs." As long as we never have universal health care or addicts never get free treatment. This is my problem: you not only want drugs legalized, but you want me to pay for your medical expenses in taxes (but first deny that it causes any health problems). "Every drug dealer that I know, except one, doesn't just deal pot." You sure seem to know a lot of drug dealers. It's interesting to me because almost everyone I know that smokes pot falls in love with it. It becomes almost like their girlfriend. They talk about it all the time and defend it to the death. You can't tell me that this doesn't have some effect on the brain. "They've got cocaine, saliva, mushrooms, ecstasy, et cetera et cetera. So instead of being able to just go to a safe environment and get some harmless little green stuff, many drug laws force benign drug-users to be around shady, scummy people with lots of other shady, scummy drugs on them." I wish the people on the left were as interested in less control control and less taxes as they are about drug usage.
- grhino 15y ago
  Our current drug policy is already a large tax burden. The budget for the DEA alone is $2 billion. I imagine the imprisonment, local law enforcement, and court costs associated with our drug policy dwarf that number. If you are interested in less government control and less taxes, reexamining our drug policy is a place to look. We all agree that drug abuse can have a detrimental effect on individuals and society. The question is whether our current policy is the most cost effective. The DEA as is a government organization. And like all other organizations, it acts to grow its influence and power. If you are looking to limit government, all government organizations should be looked at not just those that give away your tax money to others.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  Many of the most addictive drugs are legal. Good luck avoiding the narcotics if you ever need back surgery. You assert that marijuana "kills brain cells". I would LOVE to know where you got that from. Keep in mind that the bar is pretty high here. Brain cells are slaughtered in mass by drugs which are now perfectly legal -- one in particular, I'll let you guess which one. Your last sentence is telling I think. Why would you assume that arguments against you are coming from "the left"?
shaggyfrog 15y ago
> They've got cocaine, saliva I'm not sure drug dealers are really getting a lot of demand for saliva. At least, I hope not. I mean, gross, right.

by ggwicz 15y ago

paulhauggis 15y ago

"Because it's the ingestion of mind-altering substances to achieve a certain goal. Most often this goal is inebriation for entertainment purposes, some times (especially in indigenous cultures) it's a spiritual goal." A "medical" problem to me is having cancer or a disease. Something you can't stop. If you don't ever ingest illegal drugs, you will never becom an addict of them (funny how that works). " I mean, if some people are born with allergies or giant feet or different colored eyes, would it be too crazy to assume that some people are more easily addicted to drugs?" Some people have addictive personalities. But some drugs actually change brain chemistry and are physically addictive. "Just real quick, I think you mean joint as in marijuana joint. Marijuana is completely non-addictive physically, in any circumstance. Nor does it kill brain cells, etc. These are remnants of the hilarious Reefer Madness nonsense that the US unfortunately took part in." ugh. I never said it was physically addictive. However, I will just let you keep believing it doesn't kill brain cells . I know otherwise. "Then make drugs further decriminalized. Marijuana, for example, is not a gateway drug. Drug dealers are gateway drugs." As long as we never have universal health care or addicts never get free treatment. This is my problem: you not only want drugs legalized, but you want me to pay for your medical expenses in taxes (but first deny that it causes any health problems). "Every drug dealer that I know, except one, doesn't just deal pot." You sure seem to know a lot of drug dealers. It's interesting to me because almost everyone I know that smokes pot falls in love with it. It becomes almost like their girlfriend. They talk about it all the time and defend it to the death. You can't tell me that this doesn't have some effect on the brain. "They've got cocaine, saliva, mushrooms, ecstasy, et cetera et cetera. So instead of being able to just go to a safe environment and get some harmless little green stuff, many drug laws force benign drug-users to be around shady, scummy people with lots of other shady, scummy drugs on them." I wish the people on the left were as interested in less control control and less taxes as they are about drug usage.

grhino 15y ago
Our current drug policy is already a large tax burden. The budget for the DEA alone is $2 billion. I imagine the imprisonment, local law enforcement, and court costs associated with our drug policy dwarf that number. If you are interested in less government control and less taxes, reexamining our drug policy is a place to look. We all agree that drug abuse can have a detrimental effect on individuals and society. The question is whether our current policy is the most cost effective. The DEA as is a government organization. And like all other organizations, it acts to grow its influence and power. If you are looking to limit government, all government organizations should be looked at not just those that give away your tax money to others.
nate_meurer 15y ago
Many of the most addictive drugs are legal. Good luck avoiding the narcotics if you ever need back surgery. You assert that marijuana "kills brain cells". I would LOVE to know where you got that from. Keep in mind that the bar is pretty high here. Brain cells are slaughtered in mass by drugs which are now perfectly legal -- one in particular, I'll let you guess which one. Your last sentence is telling I think. Why would you assume that arguments against you are coming from "the left"?

shaggyfrog 15y ago

> They've got cocaine, saliva I'm not sure drug dealers are really getting a lot of demand for saliva. At least, I hope not. I mean, gross, right.