What illegal drugs would you legalize?

[Maximilian]

]

If you can't see the difference between an adult being responsible for their own actions and a child being forced into a "rehab", I can't help you.

But Anne, I never asked for your help, nor do I need it. Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not? I am willing to take responsibility for my own role in why I ended up in a program, and the choices I made that led to that eventuality. I was not an innocent victim, or a child of ignorant and naive parents with more money than sense, duped by the evil program OZ into enrolling me for no reason at all. I made a series of poor choices that led me into the program, the road to the program was paved in my own bad choices. One of those decisions was to use drugs, I made that choice. but somewhere on that path I lost control, and what was a choice became a compulsion, a physical and psychological addiction. At that point, choice no longer mattered. I kept using until I almost died, and kept using after that even. I "choose" to remain sober now, because it's not a choice whether I use drugs or not, it's a choice of whether I live or die. At this point I choose to live. I better understand this choice now that I have been through rehab, and AA and understand the true nature of that choice.

But to boil down the issue of addiction to choice, is too simplistic, in my opinion. It ignores too much, and I can't or wouldn't ever suggest to people the solution is that easy. For me sobriety is an everyday struggle. Perhaps for some people, and I do believe most people actually, it's as simple as choosing whether not to use a substance, in a rational way. In my own mind, it's much more complicated than that. there is something inside me that compels me to work against my own self interest. Some people call this addiction, other people call it mental illness, and others even call it the Devil. Whatever it is, if it were so easy to simply wish it away, and choose to not be under it's influence I would have done it a long time ago. It's not that simple, for me at least.

[Anne Bonney]

If you can buy an eight ball for $5, isn't it more likely that more people will use

No.  I don't know of anyone who isn't interested in cocaine that's going to all of a sudden become interested because it's cheaper.  It might mean that we'd see an initial jump in people who already have an interest in it using, but I doubt (just my opinion, I know - but I think there is actual research that supports it) that it would create many actual 'new users'.

We see the effects of alcohol, the car crashes, the family devastation due to alcoholism.

So, should we go back to Prohibition days?

The fact people will risk their freedom and commit crimes just to buy more drugs, I think, shows just how powerful a grip that addiction can be. Nothing rational about it, so to ask addicts to make rational choices is a non starter.

Depends on your definition of "addict".  Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.

We don't recommend exorcisms for people hearing voices any longer, because eventually science caught up and figured out what was actually happening. The same will happen with addiction, eventually, but right now people do their best with what's available.

Because it's been so ingrained into society now that the 12 step method is virtually the only way (just as exorcism was viewed as), there's very little interest in finding/funding something new.

[psy]

Stealing is just a symptom of drug addiction, caused in part by the high price of drugs due to prohibition. So let's say they are made legal and the price plummets, is that going to affect the number of people who get addicted to drugs? If you can buy an eight ball for $5, isn't it more likely that more people will use, and use to a degree that causes them addiction and health problems?

OK, Max.  I have an assignment for you. I want you to go out and ask random non-drug-users whether they've been just dying to try smack but have avoided it simply because it's illegal.  When you find that one guy, the one nobody has ever met, bring him here.

See this survey.

If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized would you be likely to use them? 99% SAY "NO"

It comes down to what society would rather deal with, criminals stealing to support a drug habit of an expensive drug. Or less crime related to stealing for drugs, and more DUI, and the other problems associated with legal use of substances. We see the effects of alcohol, the car crashes, the family devastation due to alcoholism. Might legal drugs lead to similar issues? That is definitely a possibility. But as long as people are no longer breaking into homes or stealing car stereos, is that a worthy trade off?

The same argument I just made above applies here.  Legality of a substance is not likely to affect use. It's not likely to affect whether or not people drive under the influence.  I'm not advocating letting people drive under the influence of smack or whatever.  I think that what's done with alcohol should be done with drugs.  Drugs should be evaluated on an indiviudal basis and reasonable limits should be set.  An even better approach would be not to test for substances, but to test ability (for intoxication).  If a person can't complete a test of ability, regardless of cause, they should be charged with reckless endangerment or even attempted murder.  I'm all in favor of throwing the book at people who endanger others in such a manner and not at all in favor of letting them off with a few AA meetings.

This view is why so often people get so frustrated dealing with friends, or family members who are alcoholics/addicts. It's not as simple as choosing to be a good person, or a bad person. I don't know anyone who would choose to be an alcoholic or addict, it doesn't make any sense.

Maybe they are using it to deal with or otherwise coping with an actual disease. I do agree compulsive substance use can be a symptom of disease, but i'll never accept that a conscious behavior in itself, however repetitive, can constituted a disease.  People choose to do irrational things all the time.  People jump off bridges.  They gamble (no substances there). They are otherwise self destructive.  Sometimes they hate themselves.  Sometimes they're depressed.  Sometimes there is some other mental illness.

There's something more to it, something that we currently do not understand fully. We don't recommend exorcisms for people hearing voices any longer, because eventually science caught up and figured out what was actually happening. The same will happen with addiction, eventually, but right now people do their best with what's available.

Sorry, but AA is not science.  It's more akin the the exorcism you talk about.  AA was never science based.  It was and is faith-based.  The problem, like in the dark ages, is that it's gained so much influence those who dare speak ill of it or present addiction as a choice get burned at the stake as heretics.  There is no scientific basis behind the commonly held belief that addiction is a disease.  There *may* be genetic influence (even that is weak) but even if a person is born to "like" a substances more than others, it's still just a sliding scale of desire, not an overwhelming compulsion.

[Anne Bonney]

Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not?

Because they're children with still developing and growing brains.

I am willing to take responsibility for my own role in why I ended up in a program, and the choices I made that led to that eventuality. I was not an innocent victim, or a child of ignorant and naive parents with more money than sense, duped by the evil program OZ into enrolling me for no reason at all.

Good for you. I was an innocent victim of Straight.

I made a series of poor choices that led me into the program, the road to the program was paved in my own bad choices. One of those decisions was to use drugs, I made that choice. but somewhere on that path I lost control, and what was a choice became a compulsion, a physical and psychological addiction.

Ok....I didn't and I was still sent off to Straight and abused.

But to boil down the issue of addiction to choice, is too simplistic, in my opinion. It ignores too much, and I can't or wouldn't ever suggest to people the solution is that easy. For me sobriety is an everyday struggle. Perhaps for some people, and I do believe most people actually, it's as simple as choosing whether not to use a substance, in a rational way. In my own mind, it's much more complicated than that. there is something inside me that compels me to work against my own self interest. Some people call this addiction, other people call it mental illness, and others even call it the Devil. Whatever it is, if it were so easy to simply wish it away, and choose to not be under it's influence I would have done it a long time ago. It's not that simple, for me at least.

Ok

[psy]

Depends on your definition of "addict".  Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.

Right, but even then, people can still choose whether they want to commit crimes, or whether they want to take the steps to quit.  There are drugs that can help with withdrawals and people who have been as you describe have put their lives back together.

[psy]

Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not?

Because they're children with still developing and growing brains.

I disagree.  I think they both are.  If we're going to advocate giving kids rights to refuse treatment we have to hold them accountable for their actions.  Kids are told from a very young age that stealing is wrong.  If they steal to support a habit, imprison them for the theft.

[psy]

]

If you can't see the difference between an adult being responsible for their own actions and a child being forced into a "rehab", I can't help you.

But Anne, I never asked for your help, nor do I need it. Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not? I am willing to take responsibility for my own role in why I ended up in a program, and the choices I made that led to that eventuality. I was not an innocent victim, or a child of ignorant and naive parents with more money than sense, duped by the evil program OZ into enrolling me for no reason at all.

You may have been an unruly monster but lots of other kids aren't.  There is no due process or proper diagnosis.

[Maximilian]

No.  I don't know of anyone who isn't interested in cocaine that's going to all of a sudden become interested because it's cheaper.  It might mean that we'd see an initial jump in people who already have an interest in it using, but I doubt (just my opinion, I know - but I think there is actual research that supports it) that it would create many actual 'new users'.

I think it will depend on whether or not they can market it, like they do alcohol. I think it's common sense that once the fear factor of getting arrested is removed, that people will use it more often than they do now. If it was available at the liquor store on the corner, it might be hard to resist, at least for some people.

So, should we go back to Prohibition days?

No. Prohibition isn't the answer to addiction, take a look at Mexico right now. It causes many more problems than it solves. One of which is people letting their friends die of overdose, because they are too afraid of calling an ambulance. Addiction is a health and psychological issue, police shouldn't be dealing with it, in my opinion.

Depends on your definition of "addict".  Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.

.

When they are cutting up a line praying they won't have to use, wishing they could just stop, right before they do another line. When you use drugs, and you wish you weren't, that's addiction.

Because it's been so ingrained into society now that the 12 step method is virtually the only way (just as exorcism was viewed as), there's very little interest in finding/funding something new.

I'm sure there are teams of medical researchers working on the addiction cure pill as we speak. If they came up with it, think of how much money could be made off it. I was given a prescription drug that was supposed to curb my drug appetite, it didn't work. I think eventually they will be able to find the reason some people are addicts and others are not, and perhaps "correct" the issue and turn addicts into normal, responsible, substance users like most people are.

[psy]

I think it will depend on whether or not they can market it, like they do alcohol. I think it's common sense that once the fear factor of getting arrested is removed, that people will use it more often than they do now. If it was available at the liquor store on the corner, it might be hard to resist, at least for some people.

And yet drunks who quit drinking manage to avoid alcohol, even though it's everywhere.  Just because some people have little self control doesn't mean we have to restrict the rights of everybody else to protect those few idiots from themselves.

So, should we go back to Prohibition days?

No. Prohibition isn't the answer to addiction, take a look at Mexico right now. It causes many more problems than it solves. One of which is people letting their friends die of overdose, because they are too afraid of calling an ambulance. Addiction is a health and psychological issue, police shouldn't be dealing with it, in my opinion.

So you wouldn't favor forced treatment?

Depends on your definition of "addict".  Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.

.

When they are cutting up a line praying they won't have to use, wishing they could just stop, right before they do another line. When you use drugs, and you wish you weren't, that's addiction.

No.  That's a failure to realize the choices you have, and a failure to take the necessary steps to end the bad habit.

[Anne Bonney]

Depends on your definition of "addict".  Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.

Right, but even then, people can still choose whether they want to commit crimes, or whether they want to take the steps to quit.

Totally agreed.  Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

 

There are drugs that can help with withdrawals and people who have been as you describe have put their lives back together.

Yup, suboxone has done wonders for many.  Ibogaine (although not yet legal in the U.S. I believe) has as well.

[Maximilian]

Stealing is just a symptom of drug addiction, caused in part by the high price of drugs due to prohibition. So let's say they are made legal and the price plummets, is that going to affect the number of people who get addicted to drugs? If you can buy an eight ball for $5, isn't it more likely that more people will use, and use to a degree that causes them addiction and health problems?

OK, Max.  I have an assignment for you. I want you to go out and ask random non-drug-users whether they've been just dying to try smack but have avoided it simply because it's illegal.  When you find that one guy, the one nobody has ever met, bring him here.

See this survey.

If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized would you be likely to use them? 99% SAY "NO"

What people say, and what they do are not necessarily in agreement all the time. Especially when talking about drug use.

The same argument I just made above applies here.  Legality of a substance is not likely to affect use. It's not likely to affect whether or not people drive under the influence.  I'm not advocating letting people drive under the influence of smack or whatever.  I think that what's done with alcohol should be done with drugs.  Drugs should be evaluated on an indiviudal basis and reasonable limits should be set.  An even better approach would be not to test for substances, but to test ability (for intoxication).  If a person can't complete a test of ability, regardless of cause, they should be charged with reckless endangerment or even attempted murder.  I'm all in favor of throwing the book at people who endanger others in such a manner and not at all in favor of letting them off with a few AA meetings.

The more drunk/high somebody gets, the less likely they are to make a rational and reasoned choice. That's why so many people drive drunk/high even though the consequences are fairly severe. If you did a poll like your previous question, how many people would say they plan on driving drunk in the future? Now compare that with the amount of people who do eventually drive drunk, does it match?

Maybe they are using it to deal with or otherwise coping with an actual disease. I do agree compulsive substance use can be a symptom of disease, but i'll never accept that a conscious behavior in itself, however repetitive, can constituted a disease.  People choose to do irrational things all the time.  People jump off bridges.  They gamble (no substances there). They are otherwise self destructive.  Sometimes they hate themselves.  Sometimes they're depressed.  Sometimes there is some other mental illness.

Well disease is only a word, you can call it whatever you like. I call it addiction. Suicide I believe is an end result of mental illness. Gambling can be an addiction. If you hate yourself enough to harm yourself, that's probably a mental illness as well, same as depression. I also believe that addiction can happen despite not having any other major issues to deal with, it can be an issue all in of itself. I've heard a lot of stories about people who were living the good life, got involved in recreational drugs with their buddies, and for some reason they kept going down the dark path, while their friends were able to remain responsible users.

Sorry, but AA is not science.  It's more akin the the exorcism you talk about.  AA was never science based.  It was and is faith-based.  The problem, like in the dark ages, is that it's gained so much influence those who dare speak ill of it or present addiction as a choice get burned at the stake as heretics.  There is no scientific basis behind the commonly held belief that addiction is a disease.  There *may* be genetic influence (even that is weak) but even if a person is born to "like" a substances more than others, it's still just a sliding scale of desire, not an overwhelming compulsion.

I'm saying until science can cure addiction, people will use whatever is available to them that works. For now, that appears to be AA. If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist. Some people choose to go the psychiatric route and use medication, other people choose to go cold turkey on their own, and this shows there is no sure fire solution to addiction. I'm sure people with mental illness found a way to cope before modern medical psychology and psychiatry, and I feel that is the stage addiction is in. People know it exists, they don't really know why, or how, but they want to do their best to help themselves in the meantime.

[Botched Programming]

For me personally I feel that people who claim they had a "GOOD PROGRAM EXPERIENCE" still have a problems accepting truth over fact. The conditioned behavior and words that the program saved my life is a phrase is mostly prominent when a person has been indoctrinated. Once indoctrinated the person becomes a sadomasicist believing they deserve the punishment and abuse that they receive while being warehoused..It's like a movie I saw once where teenagers have a microchip installed that helps control their behavior.... Just ain't right..... The kid does not grow on their own, forced to be a certain way which in the end the kid will either be stuck or will rebel..

[Anne Bonney]

Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not?

Because they're children with still developing and growing brains.

I disagree.  I think they both are.  If we're going to advocate giving kids rights to refuse treatment we have to hold them accountable for their actions.  Kids are told from a very young age that stealing is wrong.  If they steal to support a habit, imprison them for the theft.

Point taken.  I didn't mean that teens are not to be held accountable for their actions.  What I meant was, as a response to Max suggesting that kids are responsible for themselves being placed in programs, that there is a difference between an adult making a decision to use drugs and a teen being forced into rehab for a problem he/she may or may not have.

[Anne Bonney]

When they are cutting up a line praying they won't have to use, wishing they could just stop, right before they do another line. When you use drugs, and you wish you weren't, that's addiction.

No, it's a lack of self control.

I'm sure there are teams of medical researchers working on the addiction cure pill as we speak.

I never said anything about pills.

If they came up with it, think of how much money could be made off it.

As much money as the "treatment" industry makes now?

[psy]

If religion didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and religion would cease to exist.

And I wonder why that doesn't happen.