4 ms·

I would be fine with this if hard drugs weren't "no return tickets".

dantheman 18y ago
They aren't no return tickets, many people can experiment with all sorts of dangerous drugs and be able to stop using them. From:http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/532/most_first_time_drug_users_not_dependent http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/532/most_first_time_drug... The research report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that only 1% of first-time users of inhalants and tranquilizers were dependent a year later. For hallucinogens and sedatives, the figure was 2%; for pain relievers and alcohol, 3%. The drug with the highest number of dependent users a year after first use was heroin (13%), followed by crack cocaine (9%), marijuana (6%), stimulants (5%), and powder cocaine (4%). http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm
anamax 18y ago
Lots of things have "no return tickets" and yet we don't make them illegal. There was a previous discussion about the rationality of intellectuals. (For the record, I pointed out that they're feces flinging monkeys like the rest of us.) Let me suggest that the "rational" basis for drug law is "do the realized benefits of the restrictions outweigh the incurred costs". Prison is a cost. Folks who don't use because of the law are a benefit. Folks who still use aren't.
robotron 18y ago
I have tried coke, crack and crystal meth a few times. I did not become addicted and decided that I didn't like it and that the chance of addiction was not worth it, so I stopped. If I had been thrown in jail as a result of one of those experiences, I doubt I would be a contributing member of society today. (Another "I don't like these conversations on HN but can't help from responding to hysterics" post)
- usuallyuselss 18y ago
  A lot of people are not that strong, sir. Otherwise, we would not have that many addicts, right?
  - Flemlord 18y ago
    Do you mean "a lot of people" like the last three US presidents? Obama did coke. Clinton smoked pot. It's widely believed that Bush Jr. also did cocaine.
- Flemlord 18y ago
  Thank you for your honesty. If more people talked openly about non-addictive ends to drug use, people's perception would be much different than it is now. It's a self-perpetuating problem because the negative social stigma prevents people from discussing their experiences openly.

They aren't no return tickets, many people can experiment with all sorts of dangerous drugs and be able to stop using them. From:http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/532/most_first_time_drug_users_not_dependent http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/532/most_first_time_drug... The research report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that only 1% of first-time users of inhalants and tranquilizers were dependent a year later. For hallucinogens and sedatives, the figure was 2%; for pain relievers and alcohol, 3%. The drug with the highest number of dependent users a year after first use was heroin (13%), followed by crack cocaine (9%), marijuana (6%), stimulants (5%), and powder cocaine (4%). http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm

anamax 18y ago

Lots of things have "no return tickets" and yet we don't make them illegal. There was a previous discussion about the rationality of intellectuals. (For the record, I pointed out that they're feces flinging monkeys like the rest of us.) Let me suggest that the "rational" basis for drug law is "do the realized benefits of the restrictions outweigh the incurred costs". Prison is a cost. Folks who don't use because of the law are a benefit. Folks who still use aren't.

robotron 18y ago

I have tried coke, crack and crystal meth a few times. I did not become addicted and decided that I didn't like it and that the chance of addiction was not worth it, so I stopped. If I had been thrown in jail as a result of one of those experiences, I doubt I would be a contributing member of society today. (Another "I don't like these conversations on HN but can't help from responding to hysterics" post)

usuallyuselss 18y ago
A lot of people are not that strong, sir. Otherwise, we would not have that many addicts, right?
- Flemlord 18y ago
  Do you mean "a lot of people" like the last three US presidents? Obama did coke. Clinton smoked pot. It's widely believed that Bush Jr. also did cocaine.
Flemlord 18y ago
Thank you for your honesty. If more people talked openly about non-addictive ends to drug use, people's perception would be much different than it is now. It's a self-perpetuating problem because the negative social stigma prevents people from discussing their experiences openly.