But Marijuana is a gateway-drug. ;)
So perhaps legalizing it and letting that situation become the new normal will open the door to people taking another look at the rest of drugs and how to properly deal with the problems they can cause.
The gateway drug theory has been discredited, doesn't stop right-wingers bringing it out at every opportunity though.
I can't understand this attitude. I had some problems because of alcohol and now abstain (and have for 10 years), but I'm not in favor of re-enacting prohibition. I'm totally fine with people drinking, it's just not a good idea for me. (btw, I don't use marijuana, either)
Make it legal / Ensure people know the risks / Do not create corporate entities who have taken investment and have a responsibility to shareholders to make money as that is bad.
I don't think smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco are good things, but I'd still rather have them be legal, warn others of the risk, and treat those that are harmed.
Yes, long live a rational approach to drug policy. Portugal is heading in the right direction and is seeing great results.
Right, which is why I say it's going in the right direction. I think full legalization will provide the most benefits to society, but decriminalization of use is a good start.
But the short story is he developed schizophrenia. We're not sure if cannabis was a cause or a trigger or what, but he was a heavy smoker, and he had a history of theft, etc. linked to cannabis (much as he would have if he abused alcohol or other substances. But the schizophrenia angle was stressed by the mental health professionals that took care of him).
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/06June/Pages/Cannabis-use-geneti...
The war on drugs has caused more harm than the drugs would have themselves. Countless lives lost and trillions of dollars wasted. For what? More people than ever use the substances. The 'war' has kept the cartels in business, inflated their prices and degraded the quality of the product. The war on drugs hasn't progressed anything, only destroyed.
I'm curious: do you believe in a social safety net? Do you believe society has an obligation to ensure that everyone has their basic needs met?
If so, how do you reconcile that belief with the idea that individuals have no reciprocal obligation to society to abstain from using products that are harmful, and which cause addictions that hurt not only the individual users, but their families and loved ones?
I think individuals absolutely have an obligation to society (different, but similar to a family obligation), and just like if you have a family member who is off their rocker, the outcomes are generally better for everyone if we take care of the problem early and try and fix the root cause so they can get healthy again.
I sort of think of it as a bad analogy for the iterated snowdrift[0] where we can simply sit there and complain that the other person isn't doing their part, or we can continue to shovel and get the benefit ourselves. Best case we can induce them to help us with the shoveling, worst case the snow is cleared.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Iterated_...
As long as the existence of a safety net doesn't encourage people to use drugs (people who start using drugs like opiates are rarely thinking of the future at the time they start) then the two aren't really related issues.
To me, that reciprocal obligation is inconsistent with the premise that "should decide what to do with their own bodies." If drug use compromises your ability to be a productive member of society that can support and take care of family and neighbors, then it implicates your social obligation, and society has a right to tell you that you can't do it.
Of course, the fact that society has a right to make drugs illegal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Too much of a lot of things is going to cause most of us problems. Alcohol, for example?
In moderation, it's an entirely different scenario.
With use out in the open, we can do education just like we do for other things people use out in the open. Given that scenario, perhaps you would have used differently.
I had a similar experience long ago. I used a little, liked it, then used a lot. Not good. While I am not sure I actually suffered any harm, I did see changes in what I do and how I do it. One nice thing about cannabis is a very large number of people are able to just walk away from it.
Which is precisely what I did. Literally no issues. I can't say that for other things, or I can't say that as easily. The trigger was a new career dangling out there, and if I was going to go for it, I needed to prioritize and just did.
Since then, some recreational uses are just fine. Very enjoyable, and being in Oregon, quite legal very soon.
For some time, I've been involved in the medical program helping some people close to me with various formulations and extractions. The differences are amazing, and in a few cases, not really addressed with the body of accepted treatments out there now. I see people living fairly well now, who really didn't before. That's worth some research to optimize.
Normalizing recreational uses seems a net gain good to me personally. I suspect some people will fall into bad patterns of use and may be impacted, but we can help them. A whole lot of other people will benefit by not having to make harsh choices to enjoy their lives in ways they find worth enjoying.
I can kill myself by overindulging in water, but that doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Maybe education and some common sense and people can enjoy the thing they like without causing permanent damage.