Legalization of drugs, pros and cons!

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Jess

Just to let ya know... I never once used heredity as a premise for addiction , although some science does say it plays a role.

While I do see professional sports as bull shit, that is just my opinion and I also played sports in school and found great commraderie in the kinship of completing a common goal.

I don't know how you define Human Rights vs Equal rights, nor do you know how I do as we have not directly addressed this, so I do not understand how you can so readily disagree.

I am sorry you have a headache. Feel better.

[FONT="Century Gothic"]
Early brain studies demonstrated a consistent hereditary relationship between male children and their father’s. concerning alcoholism incidence. But I don’t know if current research has shed any light on this and also the early work just did not focus on women alcoholics. Kind of the same thing as has been true in many medical research areas in which men were the focus (i.e., early heart disease research). Lots of factors of male privilege and stereotypical assumptions about women are behind this. The woman alcoholic was pretty much disregarded for decades. And not studied until women began to enter colleges, professions and the workforce at large in greater numbers. Now, in relationship to breast cancer (in women) and prostate cancer and even testicular cancer in men, the research was skewed in the other direction. Interesting to think about this as historically men seek medical attention less than women and this has some pretty stereotypic gender role assumptions behind it.


This could be very different today (I’m just no longer up with this literature). Also, the advances in MRI imaging and brain studies could have yielded new data. Maybe someone here knows more about current heredity research and alcoholism or other types of addictions that isn’t influenced in the same ways. There could possibly be research today that takes into consideration transgendered and intergendered people and addiction from a heredity perspective. I wonder..... this could throw a whole new set of variables in the mix!

My mind just works this way.... seems there are ever evolving ways to look at things.[/FONT]

[Jess]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

[FONT="Century Gothic"]
Early brain studies demonstrated a consistent hereditary relationship between male children and their father’s. concerning alcoholism incidence. But I don’t know if current research has shed any light on this and also the early work just did not focus on women alcoholics. Kind of the same thing as has been true in many medical research areas in which men were the focus (i.e., early heart disease research). Lots of factors of male privilege and stereotypical assumptions about women are behind this. The woman alcoholic was pretty much disregarded for decades. And not studied until women began to enter colleges, professions and the workforce at large in greater numbers. Now, in relationship to breast cancer (in women) and prostate cancer and even testicular cancer in men, the research was skewed in the other direction. Interesting to think about this as historically men seek medical attention less than women and this has some pretty stereotypic gender role assumptions behind it.


This could be very different today (I’m just no longer up with this literature). Also, the advances in MRI imaging and brain studies could have yielded new data. Maybe someone here knows more about current heredity research and alcoholism or other types of addictions that isn’t influenced in the same ways. There could possibly be research today that takes into consideration transgendered and intergendered people and addiction from a heredity perspective. I wonder..... this could throw a whole new set of variables in the mix!

My mind just works this way.... seems there are ever evolving ways to look at things.[/FONT]

Great points. Actually breast cancer research was primarily done on men for years. I think it was around 1989 or so that a huge push was made to do more research on women, cause gee, ya know.. we have breasts.

Now that we actually have cases of men getting types of breast cancer of course we need to do more work with their bodies.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Jess

Great points. Actually breast cancer research was primarily done on men for years. I think it was around 1989 or so that a huge push was made to do more research on women, cause gee, ya know.. we have breasts.

Now that we actually have cases of men getting types of breast cancer of course we need to do more work with their bodies.

Thanks... I kind of remember the nutso collection of breast cancer data about men initially. I think that the push to study women (yeah, we do have those breasts!) also shifted due to the upsurge of estrogen related breast cancer after the early years of women taking birth control pills. The first BC pills available had insane amounts of estgrogen!!! My Mom was in the first clinical trials of the little pink pill and devoloped one of these breast cancers. Also, many women taking the early generation of the pill developed problems conceiving when they did desire to get pregnant.

Absolutely, cancer research needs to be gender neutral...

[Toughy]

I'm not remembering that breast cancer research was done in men first.........shrug...........who has a link for this? Cancer research should not always be gender neutral. There are cancers that are not gender neutral.

Narcotics.......poppy based pharmaceutical drugs in the morphine family.........have huge medicinal value.

I'm a self proclaimed outlaw and proud of it. I never have done any drug because of the thrill of doing something illegal.....and none of my friends did it for some bogus crap like that.............

My granddaddy was a moonshiner (and the sheriff)........he didn't make moonshine for some thrill of breaking the law...he was the law.....he did it cuz he liked moonshine and liked the money he made from selling it..........

Romanticizing why folks use is not useful.

I think it is a red herring to suggest pot or any other drug should be legal based on medicinal value. I'm not a fan of the 'legalize pot because it's medicinal' club. Legalize pot because it's stupid to have it illegal. It grows everywhere and I mean everywhere in the world.

I think drug testing for employment is bullshit. I don't care if the clerk at the local grocery store is stoned or not.......who gives a shit as long as they can pass the product across the bar code machine. Drug testing that finds THC present says nothing about my ability to function at the time I pissed in the cup. It just says I smoked pot sometime in the last 2-3 days or month or was in a room full of folks smoking the night before. General employment drug screens only say positive or negative. You can test positive for pot for years after you last smoked some........THC is fat soluble (is stored in fat) chemical and if you start losing weight you can test positive even if you haven't smoked pot for months.

Anyone with half a brain can figure out the half-life of the their prescribed or illegal drug of choice..........it's all out there on the net. Pre-emploment drug testing is kind of like you have to take off your shoes and are limited to only 3 oz containers of liquids and toothpaste and they must be in a quart baggie ....and then there was you can have up to 3 books of matches but NO lighters.........ignorant bullshit that gives you a false sense of security. And if you have a prescription then it's all good.

[Nat]

I have mixed feelings. I think most drugs should be legal, but I would hesitate at really damaging drugs like meth and coke and heroine, etc. Drugs where the minute you get addicted, you may very easily do permanent damage to your health and brain.

Still, I'd rather see people placed in treatment than in prison.

I do not think that drug use is a victimless crime - when it comes to serious drugs. When a person is seriously addicted to something that keeps them from living, wanting to live, thinking relatively clearly, working, parenting, etc., I really feel like that's a crime that affects everybody in that person's life and also people that person doesn't even know - like those who end up paying the hospital bills. At the same time, most of that can be said of alcohol too, and that idea puts me right back on the fence.

I guess I'd go for legalizing the safer drugs and decriminalizing the rest. If use of some drug leads to driving while intoxicated or the commission of other crimes either due to lack of judgment or a need to feed the addiction with cash, then those crimes should most definitely be punished.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Narcotics.......poppy based pharmaceutical drugs in the morphine family.........have huge medicinal value.


Based on what you say about pot below and its medicinal value (red herring), I wonder you mention this.

I think it is a red herring to suggest pot or any other drug should be legal based on medicinal value. I'm not a fan of the 'legalize pot because it's medicinal' club. Legalize pot because it's stupid to have it illegal. It grows everywhere and I mean everywhere in the world.

I think drug testing for employment is bullshit. I don't care if the clerk at the local grocery store is stoned or not.......who gives a shit as long as they can pass the product across the bar code machine. Drug testing that finds THC present says nothing about my ability to function at the time I pissed in the cup. It just says I smoked pot sometime in the last 2-3 days or month or was in a room full of folks smoking the night before. General employment drug screens only say positive or negative. You can test positive for pot for years after you last smoked some........THC is fat soluble (is stored in fat) chemical and if you start losing weight you can test positive even if you haven't smoked pot for months.

Who gives a shit? Well, if...for example...it's a police officer and his actions or the speed (or lack thereof, depending on what he's high on) of his actions causes me to get hurt, then fuck yeah, I give a shit.

I give a shit if the people I leave my baby with are smoking it up or snorting or shooting something and my baby wanders off or gets hurt or develops medical issues because of being in the room with them while they processed meth, for example. I'd give one helluva shit about that.

If the doctor performing surgery on me is under the influence of anything, I give a shit.

I would give a shit if a firefighter was buzzing and had reduced reaction times and wasn't able to get all of my family out in time.

I can see a lot of potential lawsuits, actually, which is never a good thing.

On a personal level, my hotel's maintenance department...all two of them...are bona fide potheads. They don't need it. They do it because they're in a band and think that shit is cool. Okay, fine. But they come to work stoned and they smoke it at work and the "work" they do while here is sub-par so when guests find something that's not done right (and occasionally dangerous), then MY ass gets chewed out because I'm the face of the hotel. Fuck that and fuck them for putting the rest of their coworkers in this position. Obviously my personal opinion of them being shitheads colors my vision, but the point is the same. It's not isolated. We all are connected in different ways and the stupid shit one person does drips onto the next.

I can kind of see your line of thinking here, but I'm looking at the big picture. I don't think we'd be able to have one and not the other. Testing is non-negotiable to me.

[wolfwalker]

this is strictly my thoughts on the subject.

the netherlands have long ago given up on doing the drug battle. figuring out that they can not stop people from doing drugs if they so desire. you can sit in a cafe and order a joint of weed as an after dinner treat. you can also buy at shops as in california.

it is interesting to note that they dont have large issues with a lot of other drugs. they do have some problems with addicts but they treat their addicts as humans with problems, not bait for a long jail term. they give their addicts their drugs and clean equipment to use them.they also offer treatment to anyone wanting treatment, not a jail sentence. reason? so they dont go killing, maiming and stealing from people and causing huge grief. this also lowers the aids transmission.

there is a percentage of people destine to be addicts, no way around it.these people are humans and the cost of treatment is much lower then throwing people in jail. they feel that it is the christian thing to do and i agree with their train of thought.

what I do or someone else does in the privacy of their home is not the concern of the law. if i drive down the road and I am high , then the law has a right to do something then, just as they do if i am drunk.

we have laws in place to protect the safety of others. use them to control just as we do with alcohol.

there is a very high percentage of people walking around everyday taking prescibed or over the counter drugs which can be just as dangerous as many non legal drugs. little is done about that other then a warning on the label.

more violence is done in the name of illegal then there would be if they were legal. just look at the border issues and the deaths involved in the illegal trade. people getting tainted drugs and dying etc.

legalize it, regulate it and spend some money on drug treatment.

wolf

[Nat]

I think pot functions for many people as an anti-anxiety and anti-depressant med (that works better in many cases than anti-anxiety and anti-depressant meds). I would say maybe a third of the people I know (hey, I'm from Austin) are regular smokers, and most of them are pretty high-functioning (no pun intended) - even the wake-n-bakers. I knew a physics major at UT (which has a very difficult physics program) who made straight A's while smoking pot on a daily basis. I know another person who struggles with anorexia, and pot's the only thing that allows him to eat. Another friend of mine has fibromyalgia, and pot is one of the only things that helps her handle the pain. It probably helps many many people in this country endure dead-end miserable jobs. For some people, pot really is the only or best-working medicine available for them.

I may have figured out (a couple years ago) that it's not for me, but my experience with others is that most people who do use pot are more accepting, more understanding, warmer, calmer, less judgmental and more able to deal than people who don't - and that's something I can appreciate.

I think people's reactions to it vary, but there are many people you meet a day who are on mind- and mood-altering drugs. Some are legal and some aren't. Legal anti-depressant and anti-anxiety drugs are just one category of drugs that affect all sorts of brain function and are still perfectly legal. .

[PearlsNLace]

Originally Posted by Gemme

But they come to work stoned and they smoke it at work and the "work" they do while here is sub-par so when guests find something that's not done right (and occasionally dangerous), then MY ass gets chewed out because I'm the face of the hotel. Fuck that and fuck them for putting the rest of their coworkers in this position..

Then why not just fire them for the work they do is Sub Par? Or at least begin the process of write ups, counseling, documentation of "does not meet expectations"

We are at a time when jobs are hard to find. There are replacements. Give them a chance to improve, and if they dont, find the replacements?

I know nothing is ever that simple. But it just seems to me that you can focus on what is within your circle of influence, and be happier, instead of what is out of your circle, and be resentful.