The Drug Questions

[thesummerqueen]

I apologize if some of this has been addressed elsewhere - I skimmed through recent threads but didn't see anything that would satisfy my curiosity.

Yesterday at work I was jokingly accused by a coworker that the only reason I didn't grow pot was because it was illegal. Since she's 55 and QUITE experienced from her youth in all manner of substances, it made me laugh and of course I agreed. After all, I have no problem with weed or those who smoke it.

However, a nearby coworker, who resembles nothing so much as a dark haired Barbie in looks and brains, got extremely offended and a conversation/discussion/argument-inappropriate-for-the-office ensued in which I had to defend those who enjoy partaking in marijuana, those who enjoy drinking, and those who wish to own guns. She is the reason I asked about the "loaded question fallacy", and the argument soon revealed that she gets ALL of her news from Fox and E! so it's not worth detailing. But it did get me wondering a few things throughout the rest of the night thanks to a few comments she made.

First, what EXACTLY do people object to when it comes to substance use, and why do we differentiate between them as far as which are acceptable or not? I'll take any sort of answer - philosophical, historical, etc. I've seen the run-of-the-mill documentaries and tv shows on drugs and no one seems to be able to give me a satisfactory answer on why they have a problem with allowing OTHER people to use drugs (assuming they decide they personally don't want to). And by using, I'm assuming in a safe responsible manner where they aren't putting someone else in harm. Additionally, why do we decide that some substances are legal even if they're extremely harmful (I can grow all the monkshood I want in my garden, despite how poisonous it is, or I could smoke cigarettes until I riddle my lungs with holes, but weed puts people in prison)?

Second, I am pretty sure that if I could get a really wide audience, inevitably some of the answers would come back that there were religious objections to substance use - I've heard as much in real life. I'm pretty sure it was in Michael Pollan's book "The Botany of Desire" that I read the suggestion that monotheistic religions specifically have problems with it because they want to have a monopoly on the feelings associated with divinity, which drugs can sometimes produce. Anyone care to elaborate on this? Any of the theists on here want to add what their religion dictates on substance use? I'm actually going to have to dig around in my library and the 'net for Jewish opinions, as never once were we given a drug lecture in a synagogue. It just seems to me that if you wanted to keep people experiencing the divine in some fashion, allowing a little drug use here or there, particularly the way pagan religions and native americans did, would be the way to go.

The discussion I described above produced a vehement reaction from Barbie, who despite conceding that pot has medical benefits continued to decry it as an evil to society. I'm sure part of it is Fox brainwashing, but I could not understand the psychology behind it all.

[downbeatplumb]

Drugs can be illegal for political reasons, cannabis is not that harmful (or at least it wasnt until they started boosting its effect) so the argument for banning it is that it is a 'gateway' drug that leads to further drug taking.

Others are banned because of the effect they have on the body and behaviour, heroin is often fatal and I dislike seeing used needles in play areas.

Personally I would prefer drugs to be legalised, controlled and taxed. It galls me that from all the money that is spent on drugs not one penny goes back to the community.

[thesummerqueen]

Yes, but I guess I'm frustrated as to why someone would feel they can dictate the who or how of any of those effects - perhaps my answer is as simple as "people like to make others do what THEY want".

[Meatball]

I've never understood what makes people feel like they should be able to make other people's choices for them. It's always blown my mind. Things like gay marriage, euthanasia, drug issue, are all non-issues. These things shouldn't even be issues in my opinion.

cannabis is not that harmful (or at least it wasnt until they started boosting its effect)

I'm curious what you mean by this. In what was is modern cannabis harmful? In what way is it more harmful now than before?

The only harmful effects I've heard of is some memory problems after heavy long-term use.

[downbeatplumb]

cannabis is not that harmful (or at least it wasnt until they started boosting its effect)

I'm curious what you mean by this. In what was is modern cannabis harmful? In what way is it more harmful now than before?

The only harmful effects I've heard of is some memory problems after heavy long-term use.

I have had two friends who have become paranoid and psychotic, indeed one of them was institutionalised, and the other probably should have been, as a direct result of overindulgence of some of the more potent european strains of cannabis, there seems to have been competition amongst producers to produce more and more potent varieties. The end result is a drug quantatively different to the strains enjoyed 20 odd years ago that some of us enjoyed,(I shall name no names).

[Shell B]

This is an easy question for me. However, you will notice that my answer does not explain why governments have laws regarding substance abuse. This is just my point of view on what should be regulated (if anything must be), what shouldn't and why.

I disagree with some forms of substance abuse for one reason, people who use these drugs are a danger to people around them (notice that I don't give a shit if they are a danger to themselves). Pot is perfectly harmless unless you consider being a chubby cake lover a crime. Heroin is certainly more harmful, but only in that used needles that are disposed of improperly pose a risk and also that many heroin addicts become thieves. Essentially the same goes for crack. I am entirely against meth and PCP because they pose a direct threat to people who come into contact with users. These people don't sit around spaced out, they fucking freak out. I once saw a guy on PCP pick up a shopping cart and throw it. (I only know he was high because it happened just outside of the restaurant I was cooking for at the time and we managed to glean as much from the police.). Do you know how fucking heavy those things are? As for meth, it is highly toxic, flammable and explosive. When I used to live outside Fort Lewis in Washington, meth cooks used to drop their waste over the fence on post because the Army was then obligated to clean it up. Soldiers had to wear Hasmat suits to take care of it. Meth is really bad out there and I would hear about fires on the news all the time.

Anyway, those are my only big contentions with substance abuse. I could go on and add domestic violence and child abuse to my list of qualms, but I think you get my point. Hooray for pot! Boo meth!

---

I have had two friends who have become paranoid and psychotic, indeed one of them was institutionalised, and the other probably should have been, as a direct result of overindulgence of some of the more potent european strains of cannabis, there seems to have been competition amongst producers to produce more and more potent varieties. The end result is a drug quantatively different to the strains enjoyed 20 odd years ago that some of us enjoyed,(I shall name no names).

I know for a fact that pot can trigger anxiety attacks and paranoia. As for delusions and psychosis, that is a little less clear. There are a number of "studies" that support this, but none of them can seem to account for the fact that many people who already have mental issues self medicate with illegal drugs. So, the question really is, "What came first, the propensity for psychosis or the pot?" It may even be both. The propensity is there and the pot triggers it. Nonetheless, there is no denying that many people use marijuana with virtually no ill effects.

[Autumnlicious]

To be frank, it's not cannabis that causes paranoia. I recall that while I was in high school doing a research report about schizophrenia, that portion of individuals in the population have a genetic susceptibility to provoking schizophrenia with addition of substance abuse, including cannabis.

My only issue with drugs is when others let it run their life and withdraw from social contact. Although I usually give them space, it is nonetheless worrisome as I do not wish to intervene unless I have to.

I, for one, have no issues with many drugs. What I do want, however, is society to focus on harm reduction instead of trying to control people's minds and habits.

Oh, and when you said your friend got her news from Fox and E!, I thought you meant she watched Fox News while on ecstasy -- I thought, no shit, that Fox will scar you.

[thesummerqueen]

I, for one, have no issues with many drugs. What I do want, however, is society to focus on harm reduction instead of trying to control people's minds and habits.

This is why I have such an issue with people writing off pot or anything else that's currently illegal as inherently evil.

[Shell B]

This is why I have such an issue with people writing off pot or anything else that's currently illegal as inherently evil.

It is foolish to write off illegal drugs as evil. Especially given that alcohol is one of the most dangerous substances that people can abuse and that is perfectly legal. I think it is contradictory to outlaw something as dangerous while allowing something else to be a part of our culture. I think every drug should be legal so long as alcohol is. I deplore contradictory laws.

[thesummerqueen]

It is foolish to write off illegal drugs as evil. Especially given that alcohol is one of the most dangerous substances that people can abuse and that is perfectly legal. I think it is contradictory to outlaw something as dangerous while allowing something else to be a part of our culture. I think every drug should be legal so long as alcohol is. I deplore contradictory laws.

Exactly why I'd love a firm answer as to why pot should be considered worse than booze. If the answer is purely political in that "no one has fought enough like in Prohibition" to distribute pot then... Or is there a deeper ideal behind it?