On most matters, I'm very liberal. But when it comes to drugs, I have zero tolerance (OK, I'll make an exception for marijuana). He's a post I contributed to WillametteWeek.com on the subject of drugs and Reed College.

"Reedies can pontificate all they want about their schools reputation being sullied by the author of this article. But the fact remains; Reed has a reputation for being awash in illegal drugs. And for students who engage in the distribution or use of illegal drugs, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Short of that, perhaps a stint in rehab with ample community service. But in no way should this sort of aberrant behavior be tolerated. You’re doing yourself and your fellow students a gross disservice by supporting those who sell you on the idea that using illegal drugs is an important part of the Reed experience. It lacks any common sense.

What Reedies are asking us to do is immunize them from laws regarding the sale or distribution of illegal drugs. Because they attend Reed, they believe they are above the law. Given the arrogance which screams through in many of these posts, it would seem that many Reedies see their drug using brethren as better than your run of the mill junkie. I hate to break it to you, but doing illegal drugs at Renn Fayre is no different than doing drugs in some back alley on skid row. And to those who call illegal drug use a victimless crime, how many people are locked up in jail or prison because while they were high on illegal drugs and committed murder, abused a child, committed raped, broke into your car or house and stole your laptop, cell phone or favorite piece of jewelry, hotwired your car, parted it in some chop shop and dumped the remains in a river or lake, drove under the influence and killed an innocent family on their way to an amusement park. That doesn’t include all the drunks and junkies taken to hospitals for alcohol and drug overdoses. Who pays for that? Victimless crime, you’ve got to be joking. Don’t be stupid, the victimless crime argument is one of the most absurd arguments made on the subject.
Give us a break and grow up.

Reedies may possess superior intellect, but they lack common sense. Maybe law enforcement will take serious notice to the problem and crack down on Reed like they did in San Diego. It might save a life."

Reed is no different than any other college campus when it comes to drugs and alcohol.

I've been feeling somewhat self-destructive in my recent posts on this board (i.e. probably airing out too much dirty laundry for my own good), so I will take it a step further and confess that when I was in my 20s, I would ocassionally use (and greatly enjoy) marijuana. I never tried anything stronger than that.

For the most part, the marijuana users in college were harmless because they would get high in a private place (like an apartment or dorm) and then stay there to talk, listen to music, look at pictures, or watch TV. They weren't as likely to engage in violent behavior as people who drank.

However, even then I thought that college students were spoiled because of the way that student drug users were treated (this was the Rochester Institute of Technology, not Reed). In the unlikely event that students were even caught posessing or using drugs, the school would deal with the problem internally, meaning that students would get off with a slap on the wrist. I think that the only way that the authorities would get brought in would be if it could be proven that a student was dealing drugs or if drugs put a student in a life threatening situation.

The biggest problem with the so-called "War on Drugs" in America first of all is the ludicrous criminalization of Marijuana. While I'm not one of the people who believes pot is "harmless," I don't think it is more dangerous (probably less dangerous) than alcohol and should certainly not be illegal, let alone criminalized. Actually, I would prefer that pot never be allowed to be sold in the way alcohol is, with a for-profit motive and marketing to increase sales. Instead, I'd like to see it sold by non-profit corporations, which can't advertise it.

There are dangerous drugs like meth that certainly shouldn't be freely available, but I still question the concept of making criminals out of the abusers. DEALING - yes, of course that should be illegal. But clearly our "War on Drugs" has been a huge failure. America now has more criminals in prison than any other country in the world, and a good many of them are in prison for drug-related crimes. Not only is this a travesty but think of the huge cost to society, not just in terms of money but the disrespect and contempt for law enforcement such policies create.

Andrew

Talpdx says: how many people are locked up in jail or prison because while they were high on illegal drugs and committed murder, abused a child, committed raped, broke into your car or house and stole your laptop, cell phone or favorite piece of jewelry, hotwired your car, parted it in some chop shop and dumped the remains in a river or lake, drove under the influence and killed an innocent family on their way to an amusement park. That doesn’t include all the drunks and junkies taken to hospitals for alcohol and drug overdoses.

For Mary jane? Little to none! I have no problem with Pot heads, they are the most mellow people on the planet. Infact I may of smoken a little of the "Sticky icky" back in my college days, who hasn't? Now when you start getting into meth, THATS a different story and somehow I don't think those Reedies are Meth heads, I'm sure they are smarter than that. I bet ya they are taking about POT, and Really who gives a shit? Let them smoke their weed. I think it should be legal myself. yeah people can abuse its use, but people can also abuse alcohol, which is far worse!!

"And to those who call illegal drug use a victimless crime, how many people are locked up in jail or prison because while they were high on illegal drugs and committed murder, abused a child, committed raped, broke into your car or house and stole your laptop, cell phone or favorite piece of jewelry, hotwired your car, parted it in some chop shop and dumped the remains in a river or lake, drove under the influence and killed an innocent family on their way to an amusement park. That doesn’t include all the drunks and junkies taken to hospitals for alcohol and drug overdoses."

How many Reedies fall into those categories? With the exception of the occasional OD (and I assume Reedies have insurance), very few. What's the difference between Reedies and the more destructive drug users in our society? Perhaps intelligence *does* have something to do with it? Or perhaps people who have some kind of future are less likely to be so hopeless as to become a junkie/tweaker? Perhaps it's not drugs that make you hopeless, but rather hopelessness that makes you a hopeless drug user?

I think the stereotypes about drug users are just as accurate as most other stereotypes - that is to say, not very accurate. For example, my next door neighbor in Klamath Falls (a town well-known for its tweakers) successfully graduated from college after spending some time as a methhead. It's not the one-way street that the stereotypes might lead you to believe.

If your problem is with the crime caused by drug-addicted people who need to pay for their drugs, why not make drugs more affordable? It seems more workable than the "cracking down" idea, which has been tried for decades and hasn't worked yet.

Illicit drugs cause enormous damage to families, communities, et cert. How many people are in prison because of crimes related to their drug use? I would contend that nearly all people in jail are serving time for behaviors in some measure related to drug use. I'm not speaking of people in jail for simple possession, but rather crimes such as murder, rape, physical/sexual abuse, assault, property crimes, and prostitution. Most of these people were high when they committed their respective crimes. And how many people are receiving community based outpatient care instead of incarnation for their addiction to illicit drugs? We have entire agencies, both public and private, devoted to the care of drug addicts in an outpatient setting. The cost of care are staggering – and only getting more expensive.

If the current means of adjudicating drugs crimes is unworkable, then what should be the alternative? Selling meth, heroin, cocaine and other drugs in government run drug pharmacies? I contend that you’d create more addicts, not less. It’s simple supply and demand. With increased access comes increased demand. By virtue of being illegal, it makes them less attractive to the widest possible audience. By making them legal, it provides greater access to that same audience, and as an end result greater use.

I support more drug rehabilitation efforts, but they need to work and be cost effective. Sadly, most people who go through drug rehabilitation relapse. If we want to get to the heart of the problem, then we are going to need to spend billions on the helping people figure out why they use drugs – really get to the heart of the matter. It would be a very expensive proposition. Personally, I think it’s worth it. But until we make this kind of investment, I think the current system, a mix of law enforcement involvement, incarceration and rehabilitation is the only workable model.

As for the Reed matter, they may think they’re immune from drug addiction. But the sad fact is illicit drugs are no respecter of intellect, income, race, religion, moral standing. There is nothing more tragic than a young, college aged junkie living under a bridge somewhere in America. And if you don’t think it happens, look at all the homeless people we have in America – especially amongst the young. What is common amongst many of these people, tragically, it’s in part an addiction to illicit drugs.

Good post.

The man made drugs are the most dangerous. Natural things --well most natural things, appear to play better than things we make. It's almost as if we push it too far.

Grow poppys and make poppy tea, for example. That's a nice experience. It can be addictive, like anything good can, but it's tame enough to be something the average joe can respect.

Now take those same poppys and make the hard drugs. Now you've got a mess! Too much of a good thing.

(and for my post, just know I really don't have a problem with somebody getting a little escape on a buzz from time to time. It's a good thing. Could be pot, could be extreme sports, sky diving, music, etc... )

My view on this is that we are too focused on the easy crime and punishment tools we have. Law is only one of the key four, the rest being physics, norms and money.

Physics puts the natural stuff in front of us, so that kind of sets a norm we don't have good control over in that how big of a crime can it really be to grow something and enjoy it?

(seriously)

Making very severe laws, that attempt to also set norms is using the wrong tool for the right job!

When we make too strong of a law, it becomes silly in that it still has teeth, but isn't respected. People question these and with those questions comes the inability for the law to help bolster and set good norms.

So the result is a lot of excessive damage, in the form of freedom lost with few returns.

Yeah, there is the "they should know better" line that somebody always trots out, but that again goes back to the norms.

We can cop a buzz on booze and that's really dangerous stuff for a lot of people and it's hard to know if that's you! Same for smokes and both are highly addictive.

So, coping the buzz isn't really the problem at the core.

(there is a time and a place and that's valid, don't get me wrong there)

With pot, people know it can just be grown and enjoyed and it's cheap and can be simple, private and low key. They see the huge and harmful booze and smoke industries and ask why that's ok and pot isn't.

Their question is totally valid.

That contradiction weakens the laws because the norms we do have really involve money more than they do actual damage or experiences bringing the potential for damage.

Now we see powerful drugs being pitched to us too. Tired, there's a pill. Can't get it up, here's a pill. Look ugly, here's a cream. Not having any fun, here's your happy pill because not having fun hurts, so here's a pain pill too!

Again, what norm is being set here? The norm really is that we can escape some elements of our condition with drugs!

...but only the drugs that are produced by the established drug makers and only if they get to make lots of money.

Sorry, but that's not really solid. At least to me it isn't.

Right now, I continue to battle ordinary cigarettes. God damm it, they are hugely addictive. Used to be an escape, now they are just the norm. Bad move. And look at all the ads and effort we put into those things! They suck, we all know it, but we continue to condone it.

For a lot of people, booze is the same way.

Now, look at poppy tea, pot, peyote, and other simple, natural things.

I've done them all people, at one time or another. They don't have the grip --nothing even close to the grip the legal and sanctioned things do.

Why are we not considering all of these things?

Is it simple ignorance? The drugs we permit are bad, so the stuff not permitted is REALLY BAD?

Nobody with a brain is going to just swallow that without some verification. Nobody, so why bother?

The only stuff I've had trouble with is the stuff made by people for the purpose of really having an impact. Potent stuff.

There is serious money in potent and I believe part of that story lies in the fact that we are bombarded with contradictory information, have many norms set such that we expect to take things to fix things, and that mess makes money.

Enforcing the laws makes a lot of money. Selling designer, "clean" drugs (which really are not all that clean for the most part) makes money, ads make a lot of money, it's all fucking money!

There is no money in the plant somebody grows for their own purposes. There most likely isn't a ton of potency there either, so which is worse?

If we worked through this stuff, I believe we could establish good norms that would resonate and make sense to a very high percentage of people.

Those same norms would cost the current drug related interests a LOT of money, in terms of lost opportunities, but the flip side would be more consistent law that falls in line better with the tools of money and physical realities.

And that's good law, BTW. When it's done such that all of the 4 core tools are working as they should, the result will be solid regulation that is very highly likely to achieve the goal.

When we work one tool too hard, particularly at the expense of one or more of the others, it's bad law and is also very highly likely to not achieve the goal.

"I would contend that nearly all people in jail are serving time for behaviors in some measure related to drug use. I'm not speaking of people in jail for simple possession, but rather crimes such as murder, rape, physical/sexual abuse, assault, property crimes, and prostitution. Most of these people were high when they committed their respective crimes."

Nope, no way, no how. Drugs don't make you a murderer, molester or rapist. And if you could afford them, they wouldn't make you resort to property crimes or prostitution either.

"And how many people are receiving community based outpatient care instead of incarnation for their addiction to illicit drugs? We have entire agencies, both public and private, devoted to the care of drug addicts in an outpatient setting. The cost of care are staggering – and only getting more expensive. "
I agree it's expensive, but the idea that these people are getting "care" is a bit off. Most (if not all) of people under involuntary "treatment" for drug use will relapse, because it's not treatment at all, but rather punishment in another form - not to mention that you can't treat someone who doesn't want to be treated. It's expensive because it's a big, for-profit business intended to transfer dollars from the government to the for-profit businesses.

"If the current means of adjudicating drugs crimes is unworkable, then what should be the alternative? Selling meth, heroin, cocaine and other drugs in government run drug pharmacies? I contend that you’d create more addicts, not less. It’s simple supply and demand. With increased access comes increased demand. By virtue of being illegal, it makes them less attractive to the widest possible audience. By making them legal, it provides greater access to that same audience, and as an end result greater use."

I don't mean to insult you, but your arguments seem to come from the point of view of someone with little exposure to drugs or drug culture. The simple fact is that anyone who wants drugs can get them! There is no limitation in supply.

You may be right about an increase in addicts, but I don't think so, and what little studies have been done tend to support my view. In either case, it's irrelevant to the main problem - the "scourge of drugs" - essentially all of the bad effects associated with "illicit drugs" are all results of the drugs being illegal, not effects of the drugs themselves.

Speaking of "illicit drugs" - there is no difference between pharmaceuticals and "illicit drugs" other than their legal status. What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and a street junkie? Not much, and if the junkie could get his heroin from a pharmacy the difference would be even less.

"I support more drug rehabilitation efforts, but they need to work and be cost effective. Sadly, most people who go through drug rehabilitation relapse. If we want to get to the heart of the problem, then we are going to need to spend billions on the helping people figure out why they use drugs – really get to the heart of the matter. It would be a very expensive proposition. Personally, I think it’s worth it."

And we're in agreement there. And you know what, it would be CHEAPER *and* MORE EFFECTIVE to give free drugs, therapy and treatment to anybody who wants them than to do what we're doing right now.

"But until we make this kind of investment, I think the current system, a mix of law enforcement involvement, incarceration and rehabilitation is the only workable model."

There is NOTHING "workable" about our current model. It's just a mechanism for transfer of money.

I agree that "illicit" drugs are not the cause of all crime and certainly, the fact that they are illegal is the cause of much crime.

However, some of these drugs are really, really dangerous, and we shouldn't put them all in one category. Obviously, meth and pot are not in the same league. I don't think the really dangerous ones should be easy to get - I just don't think they should be illegal or at least criminal to use them. Make them available to buyers in a limited, non-commercial way, and make it illegal to sell them without a license. On the other hand, I see no reason why it should be illegal to grow and use pot, which is no more dangerous (probably less dangerous) than alcohol.

Andrew

>>On most matters, I'm very liberal. But when it comes to drugs, I have zero tolerance (OK, I'll make an exception for marijuana)

Good grief...it's been massively documented that marijuana (and alcohol) is a gateway drug to the killers. Just don't go there. Make your life have less drama...no drugs or alcohol ever apart of your life and stay away from friends that encourage it. Yes it sounds simplistic and it will make your life so.

Beano: "In fact I may of smoken a little of the "Sticky icky" back in my college days, who hasn't? "

Me!!

I will be honest I'm on the fence with pot. I'm okay with it being used medicinally, which is regulated. But outside of that I see no advantageous reason to smoke it.

I'm not against people drinking alcohol in a responsible way though these days I choose not to drink.

Call it my cautious nature.

Chris, there's really no "advantageous reason" to drink alcohol, either. Why do you distinguish drinking alcohol and smoking pot? Why do you think smoking pot is worse? Clearly they are both recreational drugs that people use to relax and have a good time yet can be addictive and dangerous. But I don't see how one is that different from the other.

Andrew

They aren't.

Good point Andrew.

Right now pot is illegal as far as I know. I wouldn't want to chance getting caught with that on my record. It's not worth it.

Alcohol is legal for those at least 21. If pot were made legal then my position is dead.

"Chris, there's really no "advantageous reason" to drink alcohol, either."

Actually there have been medical studies to suggest red wine has some benefits for the heart.

So that is where I distinguish the difference.

To contend that a great many people who commit violent crimes (or non violent crimes for that matter) are not suffering from addicition is not factually accurate. Most people in prision are there in part because of addiction. It may not be the primary reason why they are incarcerated, but it is certainly a mitigating factor. Illicit drug use can serve as a tipping point, and to deny this would fly in the face of common sense. And too, look at the illicit drug trade in the prison setting. It’s a huge problem in today’s prison system.

Ask anyone released from jail or prison about what their post-release parole plan might entail, and I’m certain post incarceration drug treatment is a top priority. And ask those who will never be released from prison if drugs played a role in their incarceration, I’m sure it would be an unqualified yes. And even if they deny it’s a problem, ask them whether they were drug free at the time of their arrest. If they answered honestly, a vast majority would answer no.

Whether or not I’ve been a part of the drug culture is irrelevant. I don’t think being a drug user or drug dealer makes someone an expert on how drugs impact a community. In fact, drug dealers or drug users are often desensitized to their aberrant behavior. But to let drug dealers or drug users set the agenda as to how a community deals with the problem makes absolutely no sense. Certainly, recovering addicts have contributed to the science of drug rehabilitation and provide a unique perspective. But many well intentioned non-addicts have contributed as well.

You seem to contend that interdiction efforts by law enforcement are overreaching. Perhaps at times, this might be the case. However, I don’t accept that legalization is an acceptable alternative. If someone uses illicit drugs, there are far reaching consequences too numerous to mention. By allowing someone to use illicit drugs is to perpetuate myriad behaviors which if never addressed, will grow more cumbersome for themselves, their community and successive generations.

I think it’s important to look at the totality of the problem; beyond subordinate crimes and such. It robs people of the right to live a dignified existence. I fully appreciate the need to keep government as unobtrusive as possible, but in the case of illicit drugs, I can’t support their decriminalization. To allow people to kill themselves or rob themselves of their dignity is not morally acceptable. It cheapens the lives of the user and those with whom the user communes. Why in good conscience would we want to allow people to rob themselves or the right to live a clean existence when the alternative option is so outrageous? But part of this is offering people an alternative. And to date, success, whether they receive help in a public or private treatment facility isn’t guaranteed. We need to do much more.

Lastly, some people see the use of illicit drugs as a matter of personal choice. But it doesn’t stay personal. It becomes a community issue. You can’t possibly localize the matter to such a degree. It reaches far beyond the user. If you were to draw a chart highlighting all the various parties impacted, its reach would be astounding.

What is illicit?

Is it potent? Man made? Because somebody says it is?

We said booze was illicit once. Didn't work right?

Compare and contrast that to other natural things.

Allow people to kill themselves or lose dignity not morally acceptable.

(this is an interesting view!)

So, then why do we permit ANY drugs at all?

As it relates to my post, I’ll define my terms as the following: crack cocaine, cocaine, LSD, methamphetamine, ketamine, GHB, ecstasy, heroin, angel dust. I’m not going to list medications which are commonly prescribed but routinely abused.

The whole alcohol argument is like comparing apples and oranges. But if you want to compare it, I’m sure that on average, there were fewer people consuming alcohol during prohibition then before and after prohibition. But in alcohol, we are dealing with a product that is legal.

Killing themselves. By ingesting drugs, addicts are often attempting to mask great pain. In the figurative sense, you are killing yourself. It is an unhealthy response to relief from pain. There are healthy alternatives. To approve of the use of illicit drug cheapens the human experience – we deserve better for ourselves. Too, when ingesting an illicit street drug, the chance of death by overdose greatly increases, be it intentional or accidental.

As to the question of moral acceptability; we make moral judgments all the time. Some might contend that there is nothing morally unacceptable about doing drugs. But given how people behave under the influence or the lengths to which they will go to maintain a relationship with their drug of choice, and how drugs impact the community at large, I contend there are moral implications. Whether we want to believe it, drugs ruin communities. How many kids and teens are in foster care because their parents abuse drugs? Would it be a principled thing to keep children with parents who sell and abuse drugs? Whole communities, large and small, rural and urban, have by undermined by the scourge of drugs.

Natural things, that of course being marijuana. Well, I do think marijuana has its benefits. I don’t necessary have an issue with someone growing a few plants for personal use. I just think selling it to make a living doesn’t serve anyone well.

As for some drugs being legal and other not. It’s all a matter of degree. Some drugs can do maximum damage with very serious and lasting side effects. Some legal drugs do remarkable things and help enhance the lives of those to whom the drugs are prescribed. And they are regulated and should be taken under terms as outlined by a medical professional.

Damn Liberal colleges!

The fact that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not should have nothing to do with whether one is "good" and one isn't. Most certainly there were more people drinking alcohol in the 1930s after prohibition was lifted than in the 1920s when it was consumed illegally - very true. But Prohibition was considered a failure; while it may have reduced somewhat the overall abuse of alcohol, it had many bad effects. It led to the explosion of organized crime that persisted for generations, and it led to a general disrespect for law and order that in many ways persists to this day, with the criminalization of marijuana. And of course, Prohibition, like drug prohibition, today, led to violence and supporting crime. The costs to society were staggering, even after Prohibition ended.

And so society pays a great price for drug prohibition and criminalization (not to mention the great financial price we all pay for it in tax dollars). Your argument, Talpdx, that things would be a lot worse for society if drugs were no longer criminalized was not borne out in the 1930s with the re-legalization of alcohol; at least in the opinion of most people, society was much better off without Prohibition of alcohol than with it, even with more use and abuse of it. And everyone acknowledges that alcohol itself is a dangerous substance that has caused great misery and harm - yet still, better than when it was illegal. Why would it be any different with these so-called "illicit" drugs?

The real problem with the "illicit" drugs is that there's a profit motive, thus an incentive to get people addicted to them. The local meth dealer wants to get people hooked on it, just like the tobacco companies and beer companies want to get people hooked on their products. But with illicit drugs, the short-term profits can be enormous because of the high prices. What you need to do is take the profit motive out of them. Get rid of the incentive to get people hooked on them and you go a long way to reduce abuse of it.

And as noted, the fact that marijuana is lumped in with dangerous substances like meth as "illicit substances" helps make those dangerous substances appear less dangerous. Prohibition of marijuana is ridiculous, many people realize that, have smoked it and found that it doesn't turn them into law-breaking zombies. So pot is illegal and many people find out it's not so bad and they can get away with casual use. Meth is illegal too - maybe it also isn't so bad? By putting them both in the "illicit" category we make the more dangerous drugs seem not so bad.

We as a society have got to get rid of the moral aspect of drug abuse and treat it as a social, not a moral problem. Meth abuse isn't bad because it's "wrong," it's bad because it takes over your life and ruins your health and makes you do anything to keep taking it.

Andrew

I’m going to make this my last post on this, but again, people are missing the point.

The first is how drugs impact society beyond the user. Again, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the sale and use of illicit drugs creates problems of monumental order in society. Factoring out law enforcement spending, we spend copious amounts of money on rehabilitation and other parts to this puzzle. Many people who use illicit drugs do all sorts of wild and crazy things when they’re high. Crime abounds when people are under the influence. This is not in dispute. And too, rather than focusing on the straight and narrow, the following commonly occurs: not working and collecting public assistance, losing their children to CPS and the foster care system, committing criminal acts, driving under the influence and cause accidents, going to jail and or prison, developing serious medical or mental health problems which require costly treatment, and so on. This forces communities to pay out huge sums of money to pay for these things. Then there are those who are functioning but behave like sh*t to their families and create all kinds of lasting havoc. They may hold a job and pay for their dope without cheating and stealing, but their lives are a bloody mess.

There other matter is how it impacts the user. Illicit drugs are a poor excuse for fixing someone’s poor state of mental health. How the hell are you ever going to repair the damage and live up to your potential if you’ve got a needle stuck in your arm? You’re not. You’ll probably die that way. This also applies to people who use a less destructive method of drug ingestion. It’s really tragic. But repairing the damage takes time and can take lots of money.

In some respects, I do see it as a moral disease because it impacts so many people other than the user. Moral in the sense that it impacts the lives other than the user. If people are going to have children and use drugs, then think about what you’re doing to your kids. Again, it impacts so many people other than the user. One more time, it impacts so many people other than the user. If you could hide in a room and use without ever impacting the greater community, maybe you’d have an argument. I don’t see it that way.

As for legalizing it, I think that’s a cop out. But say for example, you legalize methamphetamine. It’s cheap and available to the masses. That may remove the dealer, but that doesn’t remove all the other behaviors that come with it. I don’t know if you’ve ever been around someone high on meth, but problems abound, many problems. It isn’t pretty. Same goes for a whole range of illicit drugs. Absent one set of problems, another comes along. And then, we’ll have a society full of people who rather than living up to their potential, they openly use drugs just like most people go to work. Nothing prettier than being around a gaggle of people strung out on drugs. And then why should they worry – the state will take care of them. I’d love to see what the sidewalks of downtown Portland if drugs were cheap and legal. Talk about a new panhandling problem.

It’s a complicated problem, but I just think that legalization sends the wrong message. It creates more problems than it solves. If anyone has a workable idea, I’d love to hear it. But quite frankly, the effort to legalize it makes no sense to me.

Lastly, the marijuana issue. I don’t have an issue with it. But for God’s sake, be responsible.

Talpdx,
I actually agree with most of your post. I think a person is more of a man or woman to stay sober and deal with their problems head on in life rather than zoning out with intoxicants. Talk, walk, fess up, pay up, forgive, ask forgiveness...deal with the problem before it gets worse...oh...and it's ok to ask God for help. He's always there on the sidelines lookin in to help if asked.

This is one of the best threads we've had.

Talpdx, I really like your community / society perspective. Many of your points have merit.

...be responsible!

Yes, absolutely!

And I think a big part of that is actually being real about the topic. Right now, we are very inconsistent and there are a lot of taboos. This makes being informed somewhat difficult in that people, really wanting to know the score sometimes have to engage in what we would characterize as questionable conversations.

I don't think we can reach a better state of being on this stuff, if that continues to be the case.

Drug addiction is NOT a moral issue. It's a medical issue. You can't just "man up" and quit if you're addicted to something legal or illegal. And as we all know from the scientific study of those heart patients who were prayed for, praying doesn't work either.

And, to play devil's advocate, if all drugs were cheap and legal, I think there'd be less crime overall. Most crimes committed by drug users are to GET MONEY to buy more drugs, and the cost is high since it's a black market.

Vitalogy- All you have to do is spend a day or two downtown at the Multnomah County Courthouse to see how bad the drug and alcohol problem really is.

I did that last year with my daughters 8th grade classroom and every case had to do with drugs or alcohol realted crimes. I mean every one of them. Man I was so depressed when I left but also thankful as well that I made different choices in my life.

Chris, but why were crimes committed? To get money to buy drugs. If drugs were free, addicts would not need to steal cars or break into homes to fund their addiction. They aren't committing crimes for fun while they are wasted, they're working for their next fix!

Tal - What you're failing to acknowledge:
a) "the sale and use of illicit drugs creates problems of monumental order in society" - many of those problems would be reduced or eliminated if the drugs were available in a regulated setting, vs the unregulated setting we have now. I realize that what you're really doing is comparing the current unregulated availability vs. no availability at all, but I think any reasonable person would agree that "no availability" is not an option(without resorting to a police state).
B) "Many people who use illicit drugs do all sorts of wild and crazy things when they’re high."
NO. Some people who abuse substances, whether natural, prescription or illegal, do regrettable things when they are high. You're argument applies equally well regardless of the legal state of the drug! In fact it's been clearly proven that alcohol, the most popular and legal of substances, is by far the biggest offender in this regard. Does that mean we should make alcohol illegal? Clearly we tried that and it failed miserably.

I would posit that the VAST majority of drug users do so without having a significant negative impact on society, family or friends. This is clearly true for alcohol users - it's the few bad apples that cause most of the problems. As it is true for alcohol users, it is ALSO true for users of other drugs.

I did a quick google on this subject and found the following very interesting page:
http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/craig102.htm
"It has frequently been observed that drug prohibition tends to drive out weaker and milder forms of drugs, and to Increase the availability and use of stronger and more dangerous drugs (see, e.g., Brecher 1972). This has been so often reported that many analysts speak of it as an iron law of drug prohibition. This "law" holds because milder drugs are usually bulkier, harder to hide and smuggle, and less remunerative. People involved in the illicit drug business therefore frequently find it in the it interest to do business in the more compact and potent substances. For example, current interdiction efforts are most successful at capturing boats carrying many large bales of marijuana; therefore, many drug smugglers have turned to smuggling cocaine or heroin because it is easier and far more lucrative than smuggling marijuana (see Murphy, Waldorf, and Reinarman 1991).

This "law" of drug prohibition captures what happened during prohibition. The major effect of the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act on drinking was to dramatically reduce beer drinking (and therefore total alcohol consumption). At the same time, however, prohibition increased consumption of hard liquor (especially among the middle class). The fashionableness of the martini and other mixed drinks among the middle class is in part a historical legacy of prohibition, when criminalization made hard liquor the most available form of beverage alcohol."

Therefore, it follows that legalization mean less meth use and more use of the comparitively-benign "uppers", less heroin and more opium tea, less LSD and more magic mushrooms, etc. This would, on the whole, be a good thing.

"crack cocaine, cocaine, LSD, methamphetamine, ketamine, GHB, ecstasy, heroin, angel dust"
Talk about apples and oranges! The very fact that you lumped those very different substances together shows your ignorance of them! Ask anyone who's ever taken LSD or Ecstasy (the LOVE DRUG for chrissakes), the notion that one could even think of doing any kind of harm or violence while under their influence is absurd in the extreme.

I agree that addiction is a problem - but it's a problem COMPLETELY UNRELATED to drugs. Addiction-prone people will find something to become addicted to, whether it be food, drugs, gambling, shopping, sex, or extreme sports. We need to stop wasting our efforts on unproductive morality-based programs and start putting our efforts into addressing the real, underlying problems. But that will never happen as long as we are controlled by powerful groups who are deluded by their belief in oversimplified moral codes.

Broadway:
"Good grief...it's been massively documented that marijuana (and alcohol) is a gateway drug to the killers."
On the contrary, the "gateway drug" concept has been massively discredited.

Vitalogy I have no real answer for you because these are experiences foreign to me.

I will call in my ignorance card again and be willing to learn more.

I just haven't been totally convinced making pot legal is the right move. That's a gut feeling based on no experience with pot.

No doubt I could be wrong.

Pot might as well be legal, as it's available to anyone who wants it. Why not tax it and regulate it like we do alcohol and tabacco?

It's absolutely absurd that pot is illegal. It's nothing more than old-fashioned morality; there is no legitimate reason to criminalize it. Pot is no worse (probably less harmful) than substances that are completely legal like alcohol and nicotine. If pot is a "gateway drug" it is only so BECAUSE it is illegal. The same guy who can get you weed can get you a whole range of other, much more dangerous substances.

Marijuana is already freely available to anyone who wants it; laws against it are a joke, but the fact that they are on the books means taxpayers waste an enormous amount of money on some enforcement of them. I have personally never tried marijuana (or nicotine, and not alcohol in 20+ years), but I have known numerous people who have, and I know lots of people who smoke it regularly. Our current president snorted coke and surely smoked pot at least once; Bill Clinton smoked pot. Obama did. McCain probably not but his wife has had some experience with drug abuse.

Give me ONE good reason to keep alcohol and nicotine freely available but keep marijuana illegal. Just ONE. (And not a reason that would go away once pot were legalized like "gateway drug" which it would no longer be.)

Andrew

I completely agree, we need to do more than we’re doing with regard to drug rehabilitation efforts. We need to really take a serious look at what’s compels some people to leap into addiction. Like the wars on cancer and the Manhattan Project, we should use every resource at our disposal do find out why people are motivated to use drugs as a means to cope. I support that 100 percent. But to throw open the doors to legalization and expect problem solved – not going to happen. You’d be creating a world of new problems – and to me the worst part of it would be denying yourself the opportunity to get to know yourself without the use of drugs. If you’ve spent a good deal of time under the influence, you know that living that way is very painful. The truly wonderful part of living is without the crutch of drugs. It's a relief beyond all good measure. The people I’ve known who use drugs live rather miserable lives. There is nothing attractive about it. They’re lives are a mess, regardless of their standing in this world.

No one has claimed that legalizing drugs would get rid of all drug abuse problems, any more than ending Prohibition cured alcoholism. But ending Prohibition did end a number of problems, some sooner and some later. Don't you agree that American society was better off re-legalizing alcohol sale and consumption rather than continuing to support a failed War on Alcohol?

While I do not support the use of drugs (even alcohol) at all, I also do not agree that everyone who uses drugs (legal or not) lives a miserable life. Lots of successful people you know may clandestinely smoke pot in a limited way for example. Shoot, again, George Bush did coke and probably smoked pot (and of course drank heavily) and wound up being selected President of the United States. Gore smoked pot too. So did Bill Clinton. I'm not saying that drugs are good in any way, only that many people have proven it's possible to use them recreationally for at least short periods and gone onto successful, productive lives. Not everyone who has ever snorted coke has become a cokehead, just as not everyone who has ever had a beer has become an alcoholic.

Talpdx, I respect your opnion but I think you minimize the negative impact that keeping these substances heavily criminalized (not just pot) has on society. I happen to believe it would be easier, not harder, to deal with drug problems in society if drug users were not by default, criminals.

Andrew

I do too, and Talpdx, you are making some assumptions, I'm not sure are completely solid.

"and to me the worst part of it would be denying yourself the opportunity to get to know yourself without the use of drugs."

The choice remains the same!

Every one of us has to deal with self acceptance. The hardest part is getting the experiences necessary to self-identify, and harder still is then eliminating shame that may come with that.

(from there, BTW, changing or working to improve because YOU want to, for YOUR reasons, is a perfectly normal and healthy thing)

Use of drugs is most often an escape or coping thing. Not healthy at all. I think that's the pain you refer to, and if so, I completely agree.

(frankly, been there, done that, it's ugly, glad I moved on)

However, other drug use is for experiences and or enlightenment. What can I say? Take a great album and a mild, but stimulating dose of pot, and it's an excellent experience!

For some, it triggers their addicitive nature and of course they then go for too much of a good thing, which can lead to the kinds of negative cycles being discussed.

For others, it's just a great experience.

My personal bias on this is these dangers are actually genetic more than they are learned.

Everybody can be taken down that ugly road, but some of us fall down it from our biology. To link all use to this, is not doing the subject full justice.

However all of that goes, the choice to not risk any of it does not change with the legality. In fact, for many so tempted, it might actually go the wrong direction.

How many first time drug users, use out of teen age rebellion, for example? How many of those were really sheltered and or used without supervision, or the ability to talk about the whole affair in a taboo and stigma free environment where they can get the answers they need?

(lots)

Further, how many end up trying something nastier because it's all lumped in, so the flavor of the day combined with naivety makes selecting the harder stuff no big deal?

My life experiences clearly point to that being a serious concern among teens today. Undereducated ones are most at risk because they lack the basic understanding and norms to even recognize the differences.

Might just come down to what their closest friends tried and that's more than likely a function of how hard the various pushers happen to be working the under age crowd.

None of that would be a factor, if we were to just step up and give this subject the real deal education treatment.

I do feel biology can be a factor, as much as environment can play a role too. For some, it's recreational and the need to use is fleeting. For others, it becomes habitual and the need to use is frequent. Why the need to use, there are many reasons, too many to explore here. But I sincerely feel that life without drugs is much better and saner than a life mired in drugs, even on a recreational level. When introduced to drugs, I think most people assume that they’ll never become an addict. I mean who would want to be a drug addict? But for myriad reasons very well intentioned people can be led down a very slippery slope – and the end result can be very unattractive. I’ve seen many people loose themselves to it and it’s very tragic. And these are not poor or intellectually deprived individuals. Solving this problem will be a herculean task and I can’t conceive of it being done anytime soon.

We can't legislate away foolish behavior.

With freedom comes responsibility. If we dumb things down, we end up not so free. No thanks.

Better to structure ways that empower people to make good choices and recover from learning experiences. We all have those, no matter how strict the environment is.

My wife and I have been involved in drug and alcohol issues for years. (she was an outreach worker)

When people fall, many of them reach acceptance as to why. Lack of options to climb back up is the number one reason why they fall again, and again, and again.

Jailing somebody for minor league use only makes damn sure they fall, and that's a huge problem we can solve reasonably.

We do other stupid stuff too.

Take methodone. It's the standard recommended treatment for strong heroin / opiate use. Problem is the stuff is addictive to the max, and our ability to tolerate it is actually higher than the substances it's supposed to "treat" for.

Result is people then become dependant on that and really never get through the use problem.

They don't call it dope for nothing!!!

All I hear is "Neener Neener" when you speak, Broadway.

Yep, Missing, you're right: get people who want to be clean, clean, then put 'em right back out on the street with no prospects for change, and wonder why they relapse. They're still homeless, have the same friends, and the same issues to run from.

I see this every day in the homeless community. It's a cycle of Hooper Detox/ jail / clean & sober: repeat.

Yeah, maybe 1 - 2 percent a year make it out of that. Many of them work there!

At least we have Hooper. It's a lot uglier in cities without that kind of service.

Entre_nous
Sorry I offended...just an observation of the slang term for drugs. I am totally in a quandary why generations don't learn from each other regarding the mis-use of drugs (and other vices)
It just gets worse!

I also am downtown weekly providing a meal for the homeless community in my town and concur. For them I just encourage to come clean and give their problems to God.

"come clean and give their problems to God."

If only it was that easy. But, I see this as trading one crutch for another.

The only true way to beat addiction is to seek medical help because addiction is a disease.

Broadway, it's coo'. That line cracks me up when it's used as a joking reference to one's friends who do silly things after one toke too many ( I don't know anybody like that LOL). Sorry if I misunderstood your intent.

We were talking about people with serious drug issues who've been put aside using that type of rationale ( "Stupid people do stupid things...")
when clearly that's not always the case. The Reedies are a perfect example of really smart people doing stupid things.

Why don't we learn from others' mistakes? Because we need to learn it on our own for it to stick, beginning with, "Don't touch that, it's hot!" Did you touch something hot anyway? I did, then I learned not to.

I really think that it goes to learning to be human and manage "free will". What happens to those who never experience a consequence for their actions? They don't stop and think about consequences before exercising that "free will".

Giving their problems to God would be a good deal if by doing so they'd immediately get clean bodies, clean clothes, and a roof over their heads. A person who's so full of despair they'd rather nod out on heroin than fight anymore needs something a little more tangible than "give up." They already have.

Another thing they need is very clear, well defined feed back loops, one for each minor step they must take to get control.

That's really the goal.

IMHO, giving the problem to God, if not done in the context of achieving and maintaining self control, does more harm than good.

This is not to say it's not an answer. For some, it can work.

When in this position, every little metric that can be quantified into, "I made progress today, and that progress mattered." is the difference between somebody managing a successful recovery, and somebody just following a different path, doomed to failure.

And that's the tangible bit being discussed here. It's very necessary and needs to be very real, or it's not gonna do any good.

Also a factor is self-acceptance. Realizing one has a problem and that that problem has got them in the low position is one thing. --a good thing.

Being able to see the forward movement is another, but must also come with support and that means knowing a good person exists that has some trouble.

This is huge, and perhaps one of the things that religion can help with, but only if it's not shame based.

Many of these people are experiencing more than their fair share of shame. All they need to do is look around and it's there big time. Adding to that is not healthy.

Can't really shame somebody into kicking stuff. At the core, that's a lie to themselves and maintaining that kind of lie takes strength.

This strength is required for all of us, and for those of us who are healthy for the most part, we have plenty of strength to maintain a number of these with little overall harm.

For the addict at rock bottom, strength is precious. Often there is just enough to exist, meaning any little bit can't be wasted. It's all got to go toward building up and opening up that trapped person to the world again.

One really great source of strength is the ability to just talk with somebody who is gonna deal with the addict straight. No shame, just hard facts and encouragement.

Waking up to face it all is one little tiny notch easier if they know they've got somebody who knows where they are, and can relate and tease them back, one little success at a time.

It might just be not taking the stuff for an hour. start there, then do another hour and another one and soon it's a day. Then you fall back. So it's an hour again, taking strength where it can be had, building, building eventually reaching a plateau.

I don't think a lot of people really grok where the mindset is. They mean well, but can do harm without even knowing it.

This is my worry about "give the problem to God". It's not the religion, nor the person wanting to help. It's the application of the help and the empathy required to see where the problems are and the focus and tolerance required to address them one little tiny piece at a time.

Dammit, I need this for smoking...

I know I need it, want to do it, but don't because the life impact is not such that I'm gonna go there. Bizzare thing really. More people are there than we know. They are just functioning.

And for what it's worth, I think I'm a puss about my smoking issue. Maybe not, but that's what I think, mostly because I know better and have helped people way worse off get better, yet here I am stuck.

Missing, I relapsed. I was doing so well off the smokes. Damn, I had 3 weeks clean! Then, I got cocky and had some beers at the bar next door with some buddies and got that "Just one..." jones, and that was it. Fought it for a couple of days, just one or two, then, oh hell with it.

I trained. I had a beer or two at home, no problem. I'm not kicking the beer, it's the smokes, for Pete's sake! I even stayed away from the computer until I felt strong enough to read another "women's health" thread without smoking a pack in one sitting.

My current SO does not smoke, so he's not an enabler. He doesn't dog me for it either. You know both of those things hasten relapse more than anything.

This is the hardest thing I've ever tried to quit, but I'm not giving up. I have my patches at the ready, another couple of friends who are as ready as I am, and the shreds of my willpower to help.

I have a steady job, provided by myself and my customers, and most things are great, good, or doable, so no issues there.

The whole point of this story is that I can't imagine kicking something just as bad, or worse, without the tools you mentioned and the head start I already have by having my ducks at least in a flock (they'll never be in a row).

Now, the added pressure of Mrs M reading this and telling me I don't smell so good anymore!

Anybody else trying to quit this habit? Maybe a new thread can be part of our support program!

Well, this next go around will be time number FOUR. (fricking FOUR!) Maybe five, but I think it's four.

Hey, you are not alone at least, as neither am I.

Funny too, I've kicked stuff that's a lot harder. Took a week or two, and that was that. Not these things. Maybe some of it is age related. 40 now. Perhaps it's just tougher all around, compared to 20's life lessons, perhaps I'm just a wuss too.

One difference is availability. Same applies for booze. This is one of the reasons I really don't get why we continue to allow these two things to be so pervasive. For the right chemistry, they are bloody dangerous.

By comparison, pot is lame and tame. Don't get that. Not sure if I ever will. There is some minor league, and I mean MINOR league, physical addiction with that stuff. The real deal is strictly mental and is fairly easily dealt with. For most people, just go and do some stuff, burn through some serious calories and you will feel good in a DAY.

Smokes work the opposite. Burn a lot off, and you want one terribly. Sit, and you really don't so much, but then it's mental. Double edged sword there. On a physical level, it's UGLY. There is absolutely no comparison.

Oh well, therapy session done for the night. At least I didn't light up for THIS one.

Either way, it's going to go another round damn soon. My SO does smoke, though she can quit --and has before. The weak link was me and work.

Sort of back on topic: This topic is very similar to the abortion one. Those that have not had some experience really fall short on having a definitive say, IMHO.

>>Because we need to learn it on our own for it to stick

You learn all kinds of things in life by observing/being told and not actual experiencing for yourself. I'm sorry and must confess being raised in a Christian home and have never taken drugs and drank very little alcohol in my life,
I can't relate a whole lot to the experiences written here but it still just astounds me that there is still an attraction there (the drug world) when all that happens is literal death and destruction generation after generation. Are we getting more intelligent with the inventions/toys but not wiser? Does God's word have something to say?

Respect and obey the LORD! This is the first step to wisdom and good sense. God will always be respected. Psalm 111:10 (Contemporary English Version)

Theres a reason I qoute scripture sometimes because I believe it has the answers to many of lives difficulties. It often has been called "life's roadmap". I am not putting myself on a pedestal and calling myself better than anyone. I just believe theres life change there...an eternal one. I'm just another person saved by God's grace and mercy doing mornings in Pdx radio like a lot of ya.

Respect and obey the LORD!

Ok, but where is the authority on that? Do we have God in the public record, where it's got some teeth? What about all those holy roller, do as I say, not as I do asses that are hosing religion up for the masses?

You see, I was there. Bought it hook line and sinker. Made sense and I was happy, until...

I saw people doing bad things and using their religion to justify it. Bad things like bigotry, racism, hypocricy (however you spell it), nationalism, you name it.

What I ended up seeing was that we have wise people with good common sense, that are religious, that are good role models. Seeking out those people is a good thing to do.

Here's the tickler: Seeking them out is a good thing to do regardless of their religion!

That's what I learned in my 20's, after having been seriously messed with in a religious context.

In fact, the larger scale the religion is, the more potential it has for being just hosed to the max! Don't like it, never will. I think it's a racket.

If anything, the Quakers have it more right than anybody. They believe in equality, they do not have authoritarian leaders and tend to worship in small groups where all can be heard and all can be shared.

That's probably the most open and honest religious stand I've experienced so far and it rings true.

Another thing about Quakers is they strive to be plain. This is significant because it takes the ego stroking out of the faith too.

If, after that, it makes sense, then it's probably all solid and has merit for those who believe.

Are we more intelligent with all of our toys? Absolutely. Wiser?

Probably not, but that's not really a function of the tech. It's always been a function of people and greed. Being able to do something does not mean it should be done and we, as a race, have always struggled with that.

Probably always will.

I absolutely do not play well with the "teach people a lesson" crowd. It's a bizzare ego stroke where somebody stumbles and gets reminded that if they had just gone to the right church and read the right things they might not have fallen.

Who are any of us to know that?

IMHO, this is not good advocacy. It's more like a cheap shot, taking advantage of somebody's troubles in the hopes that the pressure they experience and the pain might see them convert more easily.

You were raised in a good home, that happened to be a Christian one. That home gave you experiences that helped you to do more of the right things than the wrong ones.

Others live in good homes too. They might be Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, whatever.

I'm not writing this to piss you off, nor to devalue your faith. I am writing it to let you know that saying stuff like that, to people that are down, is a cheap shot and it could do a lot of harm, depending on who they choose to latch on to.

At that delicate time, people are easily exploited. Actually encouraging them to be victims and be exploited is not the healthy thing to do. We don't build up better, healthy people by letting them play the victim.

We build up better, stronger healthy people by empowering them to make better choices and with those choices a better life and more robust acceptance of their selves.

From there, they can take religion, or not, but they will at least be healthy.

Bottom line here is that you have made good choices. Or at least you come off as having made good ones. So, you are healthy and religious.

You saying to another that sharing your religion will also make others healthy is misleading. It might! But it also might not.

It seriously depends on what the problems are and what drives them, that's all.

If those problems are not well aligned with the advice and encouragement being given, harm is done.

Drug problems are REAL problems. The solutions need to be REAL solutions.

Here's one other example.

Say we've got somebody who thinks poorly of themselves. Is is healthy for them to believe that's ok because they have imaginary friends that accept them for who they are?

No, it's not.

That's the dilemma here. For all practical purposes, God is that imaginary friend, meaning the acceptance that is perceived is circular --self referential, meaning for that person the ends justify the means because their friend will accept them no matter what.

This is how we get serial killers purging the planet for God kind of crap.

Solutions to these problems need to be real world, fact based solutions. The people with the problems need to face their selves, accept that, then build from there.

They will absolutely end up being health people.

Going to church, seeing religion, can be a great place to meet others who can help with that. I don't see the harm, provided that things are kept real in the process.

It's also extremely hard to be real with people, if you've not shared some elements of the experience. That does not mean taking drugs. It could be a parent that did, or being the victim of somebody that did, or maybe just taking the time to talk, as we all have here, to know some of what happens and why.

Those are all real, human things, all absolutely necessary for real healing and strength building to occur.

This is exactly why you sit there, shaking your head, wondering why everybody can't just follow the scripture and fix their lives.

It's not the answer, that's why. There is no cut 'dried, fix your life in 4 easy payments of $19.95 road map. If there was, you can bet it would be everywhere.

Now at least, you have some understanding of the dynamics. Talking, sharing, learning, understanding is where it's at. And to be completely fair, religion can be a GREAT way to start that process.

(Ask Chris this, he knows absolutely it's true. I can see it, even through this limited, text only board we share.)

I was talking with my dad not long ago and I asked him when did he quit smoking. The story I had remembered was he picked up the habit while in WWII. Which was true

He smoked for about the first 10 yrs of his marriage to mom, but I never saw it, then again I was pretty young.

When he did quit it was cold turkey and he never looked back.

I remember when my brother and I found a pack cigs and brought them home. We asked dad if we could try one. Our dad did all he could to explain how bad there were but of course at 13 and 14 years of age we didn't listen.

So dad pulled out a couple of cigs, lit them for us and my brother and I took one toke and gagged simultaneously. It never got to our lungs because it put a fire in our throats.

I attempted smoking again in college but found out I am a wuss. I think that lesson was the turn off to pot for me. I would be at parties where pot was being smoked but it always gave me such a headache I had to leave.

I've had my pizza and beer days and when I found out I was allergic to alcohol some 20 years ago I never looked back.

I've not missed alcohol and I have saved a ton of $$$!!

I think Broadway is correct in that we all come from different experiences thus our decisions and choices will sometimes be reflected based on those experiences.